[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 35 (Friday, February 21, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10047-10049]
[FR Doc No: 2020-03329]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0596; Project Identifier 2019-NE-22-AD; Amendment
39-21101; AD 2020-04-01]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & Whitney Turbofan Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Pratt & Whitney (PW) PW1519G, PW1521G, PW1521GA, PW1524G, PW1525G,
PW1521G-3, PW1524G-3, PW1525G-3, PW1919G, PW1921G, PW1922G, PW1923G,
and PW1923G-A model turbofan engines. This AD was prompted by reports
of in-flight shutdowns due to oil leaking from the connection between
the LP10 oil supply tube and the fuel oil cooler (FOC). This AD
requires initial and repetitive gap inspections of the LP10 oil supply
tube and the FOC and, if a gap is found, replacement of these parts.
The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these
products.

DATES: This AD is effective March 27, 2020.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Pratt & Whitney, 400 Main Street, East Hartford, CT 06118;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
internet: http://fleetcare.pw.utc.com. You may view this service
information at the FAA, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, 1200
District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also
available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-0596.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-
0596; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin M. Clark, Aerospace Engineer,
ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone:
781-238-7088; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all PW PW1519G,
PW1521G, PW1521GA, PW1524G, PW1525G, PW1521G-3, PW1524G-3, PW1525G-3,
PW1919G, PW1921G, PW1922G, PW1923G, and PW1923G-A model turbofan
engines. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on September 10,
2019 (84 FR 47455). The NPRM was prompted by reports of in-flight
shutdowns due to oil leaking from the connection between the LP10 oil
supply tube and the FOC. The NPRM proposed to require initial and
repetitive gap inspections of the LP10 oil supply tube and the FOC and,
if a gap is found, replacement of these parts. This AD further requires
removal of these parts at the next engine shop visit. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

Comments

    The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in
developing this final rule. The following presents the comments
received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Correct Service Bulletin (SB) References

    The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) commented that the
PW SBs referenced in the NPRM are missing the letter ``G'' and
requested that these references be corrected. EASA added that it might
be useful to specify the PW SB PW1000G-A-79-00-0011-00A-930A-D is at
Issue No: 6. EASA also

requested that the FAA place copies of the referenced SBs in the docket
to facilitate review of the NPRM.
    The FAA agrees to revise the SB references as requested by EASA.
The FAA placed the referenced SBs in the docket.

Request To Revise Compliance

    Swiss International Air Lines Ltd. (Swiss Air) requested that the
FAA add to paragraph (i) of this AD that inspections performed prior to
the effective date of this AD and done in accordance with PW SB
PW1000G-A-79-00-0012-00A-930A-D, dated January 25, 2019, are considered
as initial compliance per paragraph (g) of this AD. Swiss Air explained
that this change would allow operators to continue with the already
ongoing inspection campaign. Otherwise, according to Swiss Air, an
engine inspected the day before the AD becomes effective will require a
new inspection within 300 engine flight cycles. This places an extra
burden on operators with no significant benefit to safety.
    The FAA disagrees with revising paragraph (i) of this AD because
inspections performed in accordance with the referenced PW SB meet the
requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD. In addition, per paragraph
(f) of this AD, inspections completed in accordance with this AD before
its effective date meet the requirement of ``already done.''

Support for the NPRM

    The Air Line Pilots Association International expressed support for
the NPRM as written.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments
received, and determined that air safety and the public interest
require adopting this final rule with the changes described previously
and minor editorial changes. The FAA determined that these minor
changes:
     [Agr]re consistent with the intent that was proposed in
the NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.
    The FAA also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final
rule.

Related Service Information

    The FAA reviewed PW SB PW SB PW1000G-A-79-00-0004-00B-930A-D, Issue
No: 6, dated March 20, 2019, and PW SB PW1000G-A-79-00-0011-00A-930A-D,
Issue No: 6, dated March 20, 2019. PW SB PW1000G-A-79-00-0004-00B-930A-
D describes procedures for modification or replacement of the FOC on
PW1919G, PW1921G, PW1922G, PW1923G, and PW1923G-A model turbofan
engines. PW SB PW1000G-A-79-00-0011-00A-930A-D describes procedures for
modification or replacement of the FOCs on PW1519G, PW1521G, PW1521GA,
PW1521G-3, PW1524G, PW1524G-3, PW1525G, and PW1525G-3 model turbofan
engines.
    The FAA also reviewed PW SB PW SB PW1000G-A-79-00-0005-00B-930A-D,
Issue No: 3, dated January 25, 2019; PW SB PW1000G-A-79-00-0012-00A-
930A-D, Issue No: 3, dated January 25, 2019; PW SB PW1000G-A-79-00-
0007-00B-930A-D, Issue No: 001, dated March 29, 2019, and PW SB
PW1000G-A-79-00-0013-00A-930A-D, Issue No: 001, dated March 29, 2019.
These SBs describe procedures for inspections of the FOC for gaps as
well as replacement of the FOC and the LP10 oil supply tube to prevent
oil leaks.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 18 engines installed on
airplanes of U.S. registry.
    The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perform gap inspection................  2 work-hours x $85 per                $0            $170          $3,060
                                         hour = $170.
Replace FOC...........................  5 work-hours x $85 per            69,000          69,425       1,249,650
                                         hour = $425.
Replace LP 10 line....................  2.5 work-hours x $85 per           1,125        1,337.50          24,075
                                         hour = $212.50.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to engines, propellers, and
associated appliances to the Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards
Branch, Policy and Innovation Division.

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2020-04-01 Pratt & Whitney: Amendment 39-21101; Docket No. FAA-2019-
0596; Project Identifier 2019-NE-22-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective March 27, 2020.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Pratt & Whitney (PW) PW1519G, PW1521G,
PW1521GA, PW1524G, PW1525G, PW1521G-3, PW1524G-3, PW1525G-3,
PW1919G, PW1921G, PW1922G, PW1923G, and PW1923G-A model turbofan
engines.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7261, Turbine Engine
Oil System.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of two in-flight shutdowns due
to oil leaking from the connection between the LP10 oil supply tube
and the fuel oil cooler (FOC). The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent
failure of the LP10 oil supply tube, engine fire and damage to the
airplane. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in
engine fire and damage to the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    (1) Within 300 engine cycles from the effective date of this AD,
perform an initial gap inspection with a 0.001 inch feeler gauge
between the LP10 oil supply tube, part number (P/N) 5312624-01, and
the FOC, P/N 5306769.
    (i) If any gap is found, remove the LP10 oil supply tube and the
FOC and replace with parts eligible for installation prior to
further flight.
    (ii) If no gap is found, repeat this inspection every 850 engine
cycles since the previous inspection.
    (2) At the next shop visit after the effective date of this AD,
remove the LP10 oil supply tube, P/N 5312624-01, and the FOC, P/N
5306769, and replace with parts eligible for installation.

(h) Terminating Action

    Removal of the affected LP10 oil supply tube and the FOC per the
requirements of paragraphs (g)(1)(i) or (g)(2) of this AD
constitutes terminating action for the inspections required by
paragraph (g)(1) of this AD.

(i) Definition

    (1) For the purpose of this AD, an ``engine shop visit'' is the
induction of an engine into the shop for maintenance involving the
separation of pairs of major mating engine case flanges, except
separation of engine flanges solely for the purposes of
transportation of the engine without subsequent maintenance does not
constitute an engine shop visit.
    (2) For the purpose of this AD, an LP10 tube eligible for
installation is any LP10 tube with a P/N other than P/N 5312624-01.
    (3) For the purpose of this AD, an FOC eligible for installation
is one with a P/N other than P/N 5306769 or an FOC modified per PW
SB PW1000G-A-79-00-0004-00B-930A-D or PW SB PW1000G-A-79-00-0011-
00A-930A-D, both Issue No: 006, and both dated March 20, 2019.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

(k) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Kevin M. Clark,
Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue,
Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    None.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on February 13, 2020.
Robert J. Ganley,
Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-03329 Filed 2-20-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 41 (Thursday, March 2, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13151-13153]
[FR Doc No: 2023-04319]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2012-0034]

Hexavalent Chromium Standards for General Industry, Shipyard
Employment, and Construction; Extension of the Office of Management and
Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection (Paperwork)
Requirements

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Request for public comments.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA solicits public comments concerning the proposal to
extend the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of the
information collection requirements specified in the Hexavalent
Chromium Standards.

DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by
May 1, 2023.

ADDRESSES:
    Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at https://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting
comments.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and OSHA
docket number (OSHA-2012-0034) for the Information Collection Request
(ICR). OSHA will place all comments, including personal information you
provide, in the public docket without change, which may be made
available online at https://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA
cautions interested parties about submitting personal information such
as social security numbers and birthdates. For further information on
submitting comments, see the ``Public Participation'' heading in the
section of this notice titled SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov. All documents in the docket
(including this Federal Register notice) are listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index; however, some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not publicly available to read or download through the
website. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available
for inspection through the OSHA Docket Office. Contact the OSHA Docket
Office at<PHONE_NUMBER>, (TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>) for

assistance in locating docket submissions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Seleda Perryman or Theda Kenney,
Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of the continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a
preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an
opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information
collection requirements in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that
information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs)
is minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's
estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. The
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651, et
seq.) authorizes information collection by employers as necessary or
appropriate for enforcement of the OSH Act or for developing
information regarding the causes and prevention of occupational
injuries, illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act also
requires that OSHA obtain such information with minimum burden upon
employers, especially those operating small businesses, and to reduce
to the maximum extent feasible unnecessary duplication of effort in
obtaining information (29 U.S.C. 657).
    The Hexavalent Chromium Standards for General Industry (29 CFR
1910.1026), Shipyard Employment (29 CFR 1915.1026), and Construction
(29 CFR 1926.1126) (the standards) protect workers from the adverse
health effects that may result from occupational exposure to hexavalent
chromium. The major information collection requirements in the
standards include conducting worker exposure monitoring, notifying
workers of their chromium exposures, implementing medical surveillance
of workers, providing examining physicians with specific information,
implementing a respiratory protection program, notifying laundry
personnel of chromium hazards, and maintaining workers' exposure
monitoring and medical surveillance records for specific periods.

II. Special Issues for Comment

    OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
     Whether the proposed information collection requirements
are necessary
    for the proper performance of the agency's functions to protect
workers, including whether the information is useful;
     The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
costs) of the information collection requirements, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
     Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply.
For example, by using automated or other technological information
collection, and transmission techniques.

III. Proposed Actions

    OSHA is requesting that OMB extend the approval of the information
collection requirements contained in the Hexavalent Chromium Standards
for General Industry (29 CFR 1910.1026), Shipyard Employment (29 CFR
1915.1026), and Construction (29 CFR 1926.1126). The agency is
requesting a 5,715-hour decrease (from 429,318 hours to 423,603 hours)
in the number of burden hours approved in the previous package. This
reduction is based on the agency's updated rounding methods. The agency
is requesting to maintain the previously approved estimate for capital
costs, at $43,439,901.
    OSHA will summarize the comments submitted in response to this
notice and will include this summary in the request to OMB to extend
the approval of the information collection requirements.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Title: Hexavalent Chromium Standards for General Industry (29 CFR
1910.1026), Shipyard Employment (29 CFR 1915.1026), and Construction
(29 CFR 1926.1126).
    OMB Control Number: 1218-0252.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profits.
    Number of Respondents: 78,321.
    Number of Responses: 923,898.
    Frequency of Responses: On occasion; Quarterly; Semi-annually;
Annually.
    Average Time per Response: Varies.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 423,603.
    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $43,439,901.

IV. Public Participation--Submission of Comments on This Notice and
Internet Access to Comments and Submissions

    You may submit comments in response to this document as follows:
(1) electronically at https://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile (fax); if your comments, including
attachments, are not longer than 10 pages you may fax them to the OSHA
Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or (3) by hard copy. Please note: While
OSHA's Docket Office is continuing to accept and process submissions by
regular mail due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Docket Office is closed
to the public and not able to receive submissions to the docket by
hand, express mail, messenger, and courier service. All comments,
attachments, and other material must identify the agency name and the
OSHA docket number for the ICR (Docket No. OSHA-2012-0034). You may
supplement electronic submissions by uploading document files
electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials in reference
to an electronic or a facsimile submission, you must submit them to the
OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this notice titled ADDRESSES).
The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments
by your name, date, and the docket number so that the agency can attach
them to your comments.
    Due to security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a
significant delay in the receipt of comments.
    Comments and submissions are posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about
submitting personal information such as social security numbers and
dates of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index, some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not publicly available to read or download from this
website.
    All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for
inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Information on using
the http://www.regulations.gov website to submit comments and access
the docket is available at the website's ``User Tips'' link. Contact
the OSHA Docket Office for information about materials not available
from the website, and for assistance in using the internet to locate
docket submissions.

V. Authority and Signature

    James S. Frederick, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, directed the

preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506, et seq.) and Secretary
of Labor's Order No. 8-2020 (85 FR 58393).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on February 24, 2023.
James S. Frederick,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2023-04319 Filed 3-1-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 185 (Monday, September 24, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 58785-58787]
[FR Doc No: 2012-23431]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-1000; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-065-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Airbus Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, B4-605R, and B4-622R
airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report that the door
frame shells of passenger doors 2 and 4 may not have sufficient
structural strength to enable the airplane to operate safely. This
proposed AD would require reinforcing of the door frame shells of
passenger doors 2 and 4 on both sides of the fuselage. We are proposing
this AD to prevent structural failure of the door frame shells, which
could result in in-flight decompression of the airplane and consequent
injury to passengers.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 8,
2012.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Airbus SAS--EAW (Airworthiness Office), 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte,
31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61
93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may review copies of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2012-1000;
Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-065-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2012-0044, dated March 23, 2012 (referred to
after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    As a result of the Extended Service Goal 2 exercise (ESG2) it
was shown that the door frame shells of passenger doors 2 and 4
(both sides of the aeroplane) may not have sufficient structural
strength to enable the aeroplane to operate safety beyond ESG1
(Extended Service Goal 1 equal to 42,500 Flight Cycles--FC or 89,000
Flight Hours--FH) and up to ESG2 (Extended Service Goal 2 equal to
51,000 FC or 89,000 FH) limits.
    This condition, if not corrected, could lead to structural
failure of the affected door shells, possibly resulting in in-flight
decompression of the aeroplane and consequent injury to occupants.
    For the reasons stated above, this [EASA] AD requires the
reinforcement at door frame shells of passenger doors 2 and 4.

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A300-53-6170, dated May 16,
2011. The actions described in this service information are intended to
correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified

of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information
referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all
pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is
likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 124 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that
it would take about 400 work-hours per product to comply with the basic
requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per
work-hour. Required parts would cost about $10,000 per product. Where
the service information lists required parts costs that are covered
under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these
parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties,
some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these
figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to
be $5,456,000, or $44,000 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2012-1000; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-
065-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by November 8, 2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, B4-
605R, and B4-622R airplanes; certificated in any category; all
serial numbers.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report that the door frame shells of
passenger doors 2 and 4 may not have sufficient structural strength
to enable the airplane to operate safely. We are issuing this AD to
prevent structural failure of the door frame shells, which could
result in in-flight decompression of the airplane and consequent
injury to passengers.

(f) Compliance

    You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD
performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions
have already been done.

(g) Reinforcement

    Before the accumulation of 42,500 total flight cycles or within
2,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever
occurs later: Do the actions specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2)
of this AD, as applicable.
    (1) For Model A300 B4-622R airplanes: Reinforce the door frame
shells of passenger doors 2 and 4 on both sides of the fuselage, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service
Bulletin A300-53-6170, dated May 16, 2011.
    (2) For Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, and B4-605R
airplanes: Reinforce the door frame shells of passenger doors 2 and
4 on both sides of the fuselage, using a method approved by either
the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane
Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) (or
its delegated agent).

(h) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your
principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the International
Branch, send it to ATTN: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved AMOC, notify your
appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office/
certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must
specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(i) Related Information

    (1) Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness Directive 2012-0044, dated
March 23, 2012; and Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6170, dated May
16, 2011; for related information.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS-EAW (Airworthiness Office), 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96;
fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may review copies of the
referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on
the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 12, 2012.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-23431 Filed 9-21-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 15, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8928-8931]
[FR Doc No: 2012-3470]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66363; File No. SR-EDGA-2012-04]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend
EDGA Rule 1.5(q)

February 9, 2012.
    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 February 1, 2012, the EDGA Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``EDGA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``SEC'' and the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I and II below, which items have been prepared by the self-
regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    EDGA Exchange, Inc. (``EDGA'' or the ``Exchange''), proposes to
amend its rules regarding registration, qualification and continuing
education requirements for Authorized Traders of Members that engage
solely in proprietary trading. EDGA proposes to amend Rules 2.3 and
11.4 and the Interpretations to Rule 2.5 to recognize a new category of
limited representative registration for proprietary traders. The
Exchange proposes to expand its registration requirements to include
the Proprietary Traders Qualification Examination (``Series 56'') as
one of the applicable qualification examinations as determined by the
Exchange. The Exchange also proposes to permit Authorized Traders of
Members who engage solely in proprietary trading to obtain the Series
56 license in order to effect transactions on the Exchange. In
addition, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 2.3 to make it
substantially similar to the rules of the Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority (``FINRA'') and other Self-Regulatory Organizations
(``SROs'') to require Members to register two registered Principals.\3\
The text of the proposed Proprietary Traders Qualification Examination
Content Outline is attached as Exhibit 3 and the text of the proposed
rule changes is attached as Exhibit 5.\4\ These documents are available
on the Exchange's Web site at www.directedge.com, at the Exchange's
principal office, and at the Public Reference Room of the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange notes that it will continue to require per
Exchange Rule 2.3(c) that all Authorized Traders who are to function
as Principals on the Exchange to be registered consistent with
amended paragraph (c)(2) of Rule 2.3.
    \4\ The Commission notes that the Outline and the text of the
proposed rule change are attached to the filing, not to this Notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries,
set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant
aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose

Background

    In July 2011, NASDAQ filed a proposed rule change with the
Commission to recognize a new category of limited representative
registration for proprietary traders.\5\ In addition, in August 2011,
NASDAQ filed a related proposed rule change to use the content outline
for the Series 56 examination that would be applicable to proprietary
traders.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange [sic] Release No. 64958 (July 25,
2011), 76 FR 45629 (July 29, 2011) (SR-NASDAQ-2011-095). See also
Securities Exchange [sic] Release No. 65041 (August 5, 2011), 76 FR
49822 (August 11, 2011) (SR-NASDAQ-2011-107).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange [sic] Release No. 65040 (August 5,
2011), 76 FR 49809 (August 11, 2011) (SR-NASDAQ-2011-108).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the purposes of this category of limited representative
registration, NASDAQ Rule 1011(o) defines a proprietary trading firm as
a firm that embodies the following characteristics: The Member is not
required by Section 15(b)(8) of the Exchange Act (the ``Act'') to
become a FINRA member but is a member of another registered securities
exchange not registered solely under Section 6(g) of the Act; all funds
used or proposed to be used by the Member for trading are the Member's
own capital, traded through the Member's own accounts; the Member does
not, and will not have ``customers''; \7\ all Principals and Authorized
Traders of the Member acting or to be acting in the capacity of a
trader must be owners of, employees of, or contractors to the Member.
In addition, NASDAQ Rule 1032(c) defines a proprietary trader as an
Authorized Trader whose activities in the investment banking or
securities business are limited solely to proprietary trading; passes
an appropriate qualification examination; and is an associated person
of a proprietary trading firm as defined in NASDAQ Rule 1011(o). NASDAQ
Rule 1032(c) identifies the Series 56 as the appropriate qualification
examination for proprietary traders' limited representative
registration. Furthermore, NASDAQ's proposed category of limited
representative registration expressly excludes those associated persons
that deal with the public and states those associated persons should
continue to

register as General Securities Representatives after obtaining the
Series 7 license.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ NASDAQ Rule 0120(g) states, ``the term customer shall not
include a broker or dealer.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASDAQ worked with FINRA and certain other exchanges, many of which
have recently enhanced their registration requirements to require the
registration of associated persons,\8\ to develop the content outline
and qualification examination for proprietary traders. The Series 56
examination program is shared by NASDAQ and the following SROs: Boston
Options Exchange, C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated; Chicago Board
Options Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE''); Chicago Stock Exchange,
Incorporated; International Securities Exchange, LLC (``ISE''); NASDAQ
OMX BX, Inc.; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; National Stock Exchange,
Incorporated; New York Stock Exchange, LLC (``NYSE''); NYSE AMEX,
Incorporated; and NYSE ARCA, Incorporated. Members of FINRA, NASDAQ and
the SROs referenced above developed criteria for the Series 56
examination program, which CBOE filed with the SEC on June 17, 2011.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 63843 (February 4,
2011), 76 FR 7884 (February 11, 2011) (SR-ISE-2011-155); and 63314
(November 12, 2010), 75 FR 70957 (November 9, 2010) (SR-CBOE-2010-
084).
    \9\ See supra note 3. See also Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 64699 (June 17, 2011), 76 FR 36945 (June 23, 2011) (SR-CBOE-
2011-056).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Adoption of Series 56 by the Exchange

    The Exchange believes the Series 56 will assist the Exchange in
ensuring it has proper registration, qualification and continuing
education requirements for associated persons of Members because the
Series 56 examination was designed to test a candidate's knowledge of
proprietary trading in general and the industry rules applicable to
trading of equity securities and listed options contracts. The Series
56 examination covers, among other things, recordkeeping and recording
requirements, types and characteristics of securities and investments,
trading practices and display execution and trading systems. While the
Series 56 examination is primarily dedicated to topics related to
proprietary trading, the Series 56 examination also covers some general
concepts relating to customers.
    The qualification examination consists of 100 multiple choice
questions. Candidates have 150 minutes to complete the exam. The
content outline, which the Exchange attached as Exhibit 3,\10\
describes the following topical sections comprising the examination:
Personnel, Business Conduct and Recordkeeping and Reporting
Requirements, 9 questions; Markets, Market Participants, Exchanges and
SROs, 8 questions; Types and Characteristics of Securities and
Investments, 20 questions; Trading Practices and Prohibited Acts, 50
questions; and Display, Execution, and Trading Systems, 13 questions.
Representatives from the SROs mentioned above also intend to meet on a
periodic basis to evaluate and update, as necessary, the Series 56
examination program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, NASDAQ and some other SROs have filed or will file
similar proposals with the Commission to amend current rules to
recognize a new category of limited representative registration for
proprietary traders and to permit members engaged solely in proprietary
trading to obtain the Series 56 license in order to effect trades on
the applicable exchanges.\11\ The Exchange proposes to implement the
Series 56 examination program upon availability in FINRA's Web
CRD[supreg] system,\12\ notification to its Members and subject to the
satisfaction of applicable continuing education requirements, as
described in Interpretations .04 and .05 to Rule 2.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See supra notes 2, 3, 5 and 6.
    \12\ See www.finra.org/Industry/Compliance/Registration/CRD/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that acceptance of the Series 56
qualification examination will benefit both the Exchange and the
applicable proprietary traders affected by the proposal. Accordingly,
pursuant to the amended rules, as proposed, the Exchange would
recognize a new category of limited representative registration for
proprietary traders. In addition, the Exchange would expand its
registration, qualification and continuing education requirements to
include the Series 56 examination as one of the applicable
qualification examinations as determined by the Exchange. The Exchange
would also permit Authorized Traders of Members who engage solely in
proprietary trading to obtain the Series 56 license in order to effect
transactions on the Exchange. The Exchange proposes to add
Interpretation .06 to Rule 2.5 to incorporate the Series 56
qualification examination as a limited representative registration for
proprietary traders, and proposes to identify the characteristics
required to satisfy the Exchange's definition of a proprietary trading
firm and a proprietary trader, which are modeled after NASDAQ's rules,
as discussed above.
    In addition, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 2.3(c)(2) to make
it substantially similar to the rules of FINRA and other SROs to
require Members to register at least two registered Principals.\13\ The
proposed amendment applies to firms seeking admission as Members and
existing Members, and states that each Member, except a sole
proprietorship or a proprietary trading firm with 25 or fewer
Authorized Traders (``Limited Size Proprietary Firm''),\14\ shall have
at least two officers or partners who are registered as Principals with
respect to the Member's equities securities business and, at a minimum,
one such Principal shall be the Member's Chief Compliance Officer
(``CCO'').\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The Exchange proposes to communicate this amendment to
Members by publishing an Information Circular on the Exchange's Web
site. Existing Members shall receive additional time to satisfy this
requirement.
    \14\ The Exchange proposes to create an exception to Rule
2.3(c)(2) where a Limited Size Proprietary Firm must register at
least one Principal with the Exchange. In addition, the Exchange may
waive the two Principal requirement in situations that indicate
conclusively that only one Principal associated with the Member
should be required.
    \15\ The Commission notes that EDGA is an equities exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes additional amendments to Rule 2.3(c)(3) and
(4) to require Members to register a CCO and a Financial/Operations
Principal (``FINOP'') in order to make the Exchange's rules
substantially similar to the rules of FINRA and other SROs. In
addition, this more accurately reflects the heightened level of
accountability inherent in the duty of overseeing compliance by a
Member of the Exchange, and in the oversight and preparation of
financial reports and the oversight of those employed in financial and
operational capacities at each Member firm. The proposed amendments
state each Member shall designate a CCO on the Schedule A of Form BD,
and requires the individual designated as a CCO to register with the
Exchange and pass the General Securities Principal Examination (Series
24). Similarly, the proposed amendments to Rule 2.3 require each Member
subject to Rule 15c3-1 of the Act to designate a FINOP, and requires
the individual designated as a FINOP to successfully complete the
Financial and Operations Principal Examination (Series 27), and
register in that capacity with the Exchange as prescribed by the
Exchange.
    The Exchange proposes to make other ministerial amendments to Rule
2.3 to accommodate the placement of the proposed amendments outlined in
this rule filing.

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\16\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(c)(3)(B) of the Act.\17\ Under that section, it is the Exchange's
responsibility to prescribe standards of training, experience, and
competence for Exchange Members and their associated persons, in
particular, by offering an alternative qualification examination for
proprietary traders that more closely reflects the practical knowledge
that is a pre-requisite to proprietary trading. Pursuant to this
statutory obligation, the Exchange requests to recognize a new category
of limited representative registration for proprietary traders and to
permit Authorized Traders of Members who engage solely in proprietary
trading to obtain the Series 56 license. The Exchange believes the
Series 56 examination establishes that Authorized Traders of Members
have attained specified levels of competence and knowledge generally
applicable to proprietary trading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(c)(3)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the requirement that persons functioning
in certain supervisory capacities, including CCO and a FINOP, be
registered through the WebCRD[supreg] system and be subject to higher
qualification standards appropriately reflects the enhanced
responsibility of their roles and is consistent with the Act. The
general requirement that Members must have a minimum of two Principals
responsible for oversight of Member organization activity, who must be
registered as such and pass a principal exam, should help the Exchange
strengthen the regulation of its Member firms, and prepare those
individuals for their responsibilities. The nature of the firm,
however, may dictate that more than two Principals are needed to
provide appropriate supervision. In addition, the requirement for each
Member to have a CCO who must register and pass the Series 24 exam and
a FINOP who must register and pass the Series 27 exam is appropriate
based on the heightened level of accountability inherent in the duty of
overseeing compliance by a Member of the Exchange, and in the oversight
and preparation of financial reports and the oversight of those
employed in financial and operational capacities at each Member firm.
    The Exchange believes that this proposal will enhance its ability
to ensure an effective supervisory structure for those conducting
business on the Exchange. The requirements apply broadly and are
intended to help close a regulatory gap which has resulted in varying
registration, qualification, and supervision requirements across
markets. The Exchange believes that the changes proposed to its rules
will strengthen its regulatory structure and should enhance the ability
of its Authorized Traders and Members to comply with the Exchange's
rules as well as with the federal securities laws.
    In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the principles of Section 11A(a)(1)(C)(ii) of the Act
in that it seeks to assure fair competition among brokers and dealers
and among exchange markets. The Exchange believes that the proposed
rule will promote uniformity of regulation across markets, thus
reducing opportunities for regulatory arbitrage. EDGA's proposed rule
change helps ensure that all persons conducting a securities business
through EDGA are appropriately supervised, as the Commission expects of
all SROs.
    The proposed changes are also consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of
the Act,\18\ because they would promote just and equitable principles
of trade, remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free
and open market and a national market system, and, in general, protect
investors and the public interest, by enabling such persons to qualify
for registration with the Exchange by offering an alternative
qualification examination that specifically addresses industry topics
that establish the foundation for the regulatory and procedural
knowledge necessary for such persons electing to register as
Proprietary Traders. Similarly, including new requirements for Members
to maintain at least two Principals, a CCO and a FINOP, harmonizes the
Exchange's rules with substantially similar rules of FINRA and other
SROs. Accordingly, the modifications to EDGA Rules 2.3 and 11.4 and the
Interpretations to Rule 2.5 promote just and equitable principles of
trade, remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and
open market and a national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act.

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

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

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

    The Exchange has designated this rule filing as non-controversial
under Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \19\ and paragraph (f)(6) of Rule
19b-4 thereunder.\20\ The Exchange asserts that the proposed rule
changes: (1) Will not significantly affect the protection of investors
or the public interest; (2) will not impose any significant burden on
competition; (3) and will not become operative for 30 days from the
date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may
designate. In addition, the Exchange provided the Commission with
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule changes, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule changes, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing.\21\ For the
foregoing reasons, this rule filing qualifies for immediate
effectiveness as a ``noncontroversial'' rule change under paragraph
(f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 because the Series 56 qualification examination
has been adopted or will be adopted for use by NASDAQ and other SROs.
The Series 56 examination also reflects a collaborative effort to adopt
an appropriate qualification examination for a new registration
category. In addition, the Exchange's proposal to include new
requirements for Members to maintain at least two Principals, a CCO and
a FINOP, harmonizes the Exchange's rules with substantially similar
rules of FINRA and other SROs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \20\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \21\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rule changes as proposed will allow the Exchange to recognize a
new category of limited representative registration for proprietary
traders. The Exchange believes that Authorized Traders of Members who
engage solely in proprietary trading, obtain the Series 56 license, and
wish to register with EDGA would be disadvantaged by having to wait for
the proposed rule changes to become operative. Accordingly, because the
Exchange believes that implementation of the standards proposed in this
filing is

important to its maintenance of a fair and orderly market and is non-
controversial, the Exchange requested that the Commission waive the 30-
day pre-operative waiting period contained in Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
under the Act.\22\ Waiver of this requirement will allow the Exchange
to make the examination available as soon as possible to coincide with
its availability on other exchanges. The Commission believes that
waiver of the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection
of investors and the public interest because the proposal makes the
registration, qualification and continuing education requirements of
EDGA comparable to those of the other exchanges and will enable EDGA to
recognize the Series 56 exam as a valid qualification for proprietary
traders.\23\ Therefore, the Commission designates the proposal
operative upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \23\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend the 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.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml; or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-EDGA-2012-04 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-EDGA-2012-04. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington,
DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3
p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and
copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received
will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal
identifying information from submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-EDGA-2012-04 and should be submitted by
March 7, 2012.

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

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-3470 Filed 2-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Docket NO. OW 2003 0075 Centralized Waste Treatment Industry Regulatory Record 9/ 5/ 2003 Section DCN Type Date Author/ Affiliation Receiver Subject CBI Pages 44 44.2 Letter 3/ 24/ 2003 Andrew J. Harrison, McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC Elwood Forsht, US EPA Technical Rationale for Removal of Barium as a Regulated Parameter from the Centralized Waste Rule  Environmental Treatment Team, LLC 1 44 44.2.1 Report 3/ 24/ 2003 Environmental Treatment Team Elwood Forsht, US EPA Technical Rationale for Removal of Barium as a Regulated Parameter from the Centralized Waste Rule  Environmental Treatment Team, LLC 34 44 44.2.2 attachment 3/ 24/ 2003 Environmental Treatment Team Elwood Forsht, US EPA Process & Instrumentation Diagram ( P& ID) CBI 2 44 44.3 Memo 7/ 7/ 2003 Elwood Forsht, US EPA CWT Record Assessment of the Environmental Treatment Team's Submissions Requesting Deletion of the Barium Limits from the Oils Subcategory 3 44 44.4 email 1/ 28/ 2003 Elwood Forsht, US EPA Andrew J. Harrison, McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC ETT Data Request 1 44 44.5 email 2/ 7/ 2003 Andrew J. Harrison, McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC Elwood Forsht, US EPA Technical Rationale 2 44 44.6 email 2/ 7/ 2003 Andrew J. Harrison, McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC Elwood Forsht, US EPA P& ID 2 44 44.6.1 email 2/ 14/ 2003 Andrew J. Harrison, McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC Elwood Forsht, US EPA Please confirm receipt of material 1 44 44.7 email 2/ 19/ 2003 Elwood Forsht, US EPA Andrew J. Harrison, McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC RE: attachment 1 44 44.8 email 2/ 20/ 2003 Andrew J. Harrison, McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC Elwood Forsht, US EPA FW: P& ID 2 44 44.9 email 2/ 20/ 2002 Andrew J. Harrison, McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC Elwood Forsht, US EPA FW: Technical Rationale 2 44 44.10. email 2/ 20/ 2003 Elwood Forsht, US EPA Andrew J. Harrison, McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC RE: FW: Technical Rationale 1 44 44.11 email 2/ 20/ 2003 Elwood Forsht, US EPA Andrew J. Harrison, McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC RE: FW: Technical Rationale 1 44 44.12 email 3/ 13/ 2003 Elwood Forsht, US EPA Andrew J. Harrison, McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC RE: FW: Environmental Treatment Team, Inc 3 44 44.13 email 3/ 13/ 2003 Andrew J. Harrison, McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC Elwood Forsht, US EPA RE: FW: Environmental Treatment Team, Inc 1 44 44.14 email 3/ 13/ 2003 Andrew J. Harrison, McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC Elwood Forsht, US EPA FW: ETT wastewater CWT data. xls 10 44 44.15 email 3/ 13/ 2003 Elwood Forsht, US EPA Andrew J. Harrison, McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC RE: FW: Environmental Treatment Team, Inc 1 44 44.16 email 3/ 13/ 2003 Elwood Forsht, US EPA Andrew J. Harrison, McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC RE: FW:: ETT wastewater CWT Data. xls 1 44 44.17 email 3/ 14/ 2003 Andrew J. Harrison, McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC Elwood Forsht, US EPA FW: Conference Call 1 44 44.18 email 3/ 17/ 2003 Elwood Forsht, US EPA Andrew J. Harrison, McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC ETT wastewater CWT Data 1 44 44.19 email 3/ 17/ 2003 Andrew J. Harrison, McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC Elwood Forsht, US EPA RE: ETT wastewater CWT Data 1 44 44.20. email 3/ 17/ 2003 Elwood Forsht, US EPA Andrew J. Harrison, McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC RE: Hopefully this is the last question 1 44 44.21 email 3/ 17/ 2003 Elwood Forsht, US EPA Andrew J. Harrison, McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC RE: ETT wastewater CWT Data 1 44 44.22 email 3/ 17/ 2003 Rich Major Elwood Forsht, US EPA Treatment Train Diagram 2 44 44.23 email 3/ 17/ 2003 Rich Major Elwood Forsht, US EPA In Response to your question 13 44 44.24 email 3/ 20/ 2003 Elwood Forsht, US EPA Andrew J. Harrison, McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC Hard Copy of ETT's for Feb. 24, 2003 Tech Rationale 1 44 44.25 email 3/ 24/ 2003 Andrew J. Harrison, McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC Elwood Forsht, US EPA RE: Hopefully this is the last question 1 44 44.26 email 3/ 24/ 2003 Elwood Forsht, US EPA Andrew J. Harrison, McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC RE: Hopefully this is the last question 1 44 44.27 email 3/ 24/ 2003 Andrew J. Harrison, McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC Elwood Forsht, US EPA RE: Hopefully this is the last question 1 44 44.28 email 3/ 24/ 2003 Andrew J. Harrison, McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC Elwood Forsht, US EPA no subject 1 44 44.29 email 3/ 24/ 2003 Andrew J. Harrison, McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC Elwood Forsht, US EPA RE: Hopefully this is the last question 1 44 44.30. email 3/ 24/ 2003 Elwood Forsht, US EPA Andrew J. Harrison, McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC RE: Hopefully this is the last question 1 44 44.31 email 3/ 24/ 2003 Andrew J. Harrison, McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC Elwood Forsht, US EPA RE: Hopefully this is the last question 1 44 44.32 email 4/ 7/ 2003 Andrew J. Harrison, McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC Elwood Forsht, US EPA no subject 1 44 44.33 email 4/ 18/ 2003 Andrew J. Harrison, McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC Elwood Forsht, US EPA no subject 1 44 44.34 email 4/ 21/ 2003 Elwood Forsht, US EPA Andrew J. Harrison, McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC RE: 1 44 44.35 email 5/ 15/ 2003 Andrew J. Harrison, McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC Elwood Forsht, US EPA RE: 1 44 44.36 email 5/ 20/ 2003 Elwood Forsht, US EPA Andrew J. Harrison, McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC RE: 1 44 44.36.1 email 5/ 20/ 2003 Andrew J. Harrison, McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC Elwood Forsht, US EPA RE: 1 44 44.37 email 5/ 20/ 2003 Andrew J. Harrison, McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC Elwood Forsht, US EPA RE: 1 44 44.38 email 7/ 11/ 2003 Andrew J. Harrison, McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC Elwood Forsht, US EPA Your Routine Confidentiality Statement on all of your emails 1 44 44.39 email 7/ 11/ 2001 Elwood Forsht, US EPA Andrew J. Harrison, McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC Your Routine Confidentiality Statement on all of your emails 2 44 44.1 fax 6/ 19/ 2003 Andrew J. Harrison, McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC Jan Matuszko, US EPA Request for Determination of Applicability of Categorical Pretreatment Standards; Request for Fundamentally Different Factors Variance, Environmental Treatment Team 4