[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 48 (Friday, March 11, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 12894]
[FR Doc No: 2016-05500]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD14-14-000]

Price Formation in Energy and Ancillary; Services Markets
Operated by Regional Transmission; Organizations and Independent System
Operators; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Midcontinent
Independent System Operator, Inc., ISO New England, Inc., New York
Independent System Operator, Inc., Southwest Power Pool, Inc., and the
California Independent System Operator Corporation (collectively, RTOs/
ISOs), each separately, filed reports in response to the Order
Directing Reports issued by the Commission on November 20, 2015.\1\ In
the Order Directing Reports, the Commission established that public
comment in response to the RTOs/ISOs' reports may be submitted within
30 days of the filing of the reports.\2\ Upon consideration, public
comment in response to all of the RTOs/ISOs' reports may be submitted
by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on April 6, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Price Formation in Energy and Ancillary Services Markets
Operated by Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent
System Operators, 153 FERC ] 61,221 (2015) (Order Directing
Reports).
    \2\ Id. P 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 submit an original and five copies
of their comments to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
``eSubscription'' link on the Web site that enables subscribers to
receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed
docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on April 6, 2016.

    Dated: March 7, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-05500 Filed 3-10-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 112 (Wednesday, June 11, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33627-33629]
[FR Doc No: 2014-13559]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72329; File No. SR-CBOE-2014-017]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To
Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment
1, To Amend Its Rules Related to Complex Orders

June 5, 2014.

I. Introduction

    On February 19, 2014, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend its rules relating to
complex orders. On March 3, 2014, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to
the proposed rule change. The proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1 thereto, was published for comment in the Federal
Register on March 10, 2014.\3\ The Commission received no comments on
the proposed rule change. On April 23, 2014, the Commission extended
the time period in which to either approve the proposal, disapprove the
proposal, or to institute proceedings to determine whether to approve
or disapprove the proposal, to June 6, 2014.\4\ This order institutes
proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \5\ to determine
whether to approve or disapprove the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71648 (March 5,
2014), 79 FR 13359 (``Notice'').
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72008, 79 FR 24032
(April 29, 2014).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of Proposed Rule Change

    Under current CBOE Rule 6.53C(d)(ii), a Trading Permit Holder
representing a COA-eligible order may request that the Exchange
initiate a complex order auction (``COA'') for the COA-eligible order
before such order enters the complex order book (``COB'').\6\ In this
proposed rule change, the Exchange proposes to require all complex
orders with three or more legs to be subject to a COA prior to entering
the COB.\7\ Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule
6.53C(d)(ii) to provide that CBOE's Hybrid Trading System \8\ (the
``System'') will initiate a COA on receipt of: (1) A COA-eligible order
with two

legs and request from the Trading Permit Holder representing the order
that it initiate a COA; or (2) a complex order with three or more legs,
regardless of the order's routing parameters (e.g., a request to route
directly to the COB) or handling instructions (except for orders routed
for manual handling).\9\ Thus, as proposed, all complex orders in
Hybrid classes with three or more legs would automatically be subject
to a COA (other than those routed for manual handling) prior to
entering the COB where they can leg into the market.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Under current CBOE Rule 6.53C(d)(i)(2), the Exchange may
determine on a class-by-class basis which complex orders are
eligible for a COA, including by complex order type and origin type.
The Exchange notes that currently, in all Hybrid classes, customer,
firm and broker-dealer complex orders are eligible for a COA, and
all complex order types except for immediate-or-cancel (``IOC'')
orders are eligible for a COA in all Hybrid classes. See Notice,
supra note 3, n.8. Additionally, only marketable orders and
``tweeners'' (limit orders bettering the same side of the derived
net market) are eligible for a COA. For Hybrid 3.0 classes (i.e.
SPX), all complex order types (including IOC orders) are eligible
for a COA, but only customer complex orders are eligible for a COA.
See id. (citing CBOE Regulatory Circulars RG06-73, RG08-38, and
RG08-97).
    \7\ The Exchange explains that this proposed change applies to
Hybrid classes only, and not Hybrid 3.0 classes. See Notice, supra
note 3, n.7. In this regard, the proposed rule change proposes to
amend CBOE Rule 6.53C, Interpretation and Policy .10 to indicate
that complex orders in Hybrid 3.0 classes, regardless of the number
of legs, will initiate a COA in the same manner they currently do.
See id.
    \8\ The proposed rule change proposes to amend CBOE Rule
6.53C(d)(ii) to say that the System, rather than the Exchange, will
send the RFR message. See id. at n.9. Because the System will
automatically send the RFR message when the conditions set forth in
CBOE Rule 6.53C(d)(ii) are met, the Exchange believes using the term
``System'' in the rule text is appropriate. See id.
    \9\ The Exchange explains that if a complex order with three or
more legs contains an instruction to route for manual handling, such
as to PAR, and through such manual handling routes to the COB, the
proposed rule change would provide that such order will initiate a
COA prior to entry on the COB, even if the PAR operator requests
that the order not initiate a COA. See Notice, supra note 3, n.10.
    \10\ The Exchange states that this automatic initiation of a COA
does not apply to stock-option orders. See id. at n.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend CBOE Rule 6.53C(d)(ii) to provide
that CBOE's System will reject back to a Trading Permit Holder any
complex order with three or more legs that includes a request pursuant
to CBOE Rule 6.53C, Interpretation and Policy .04 \11\ that the order
not initiate a COA.\12\ The Exchange also proposes to amend CBOE Rule
6.53C(d)(ii), which currently provides that only a Trading Permit
Holder representing an order may request that the order initiate a COA,
to also provide that PAR operators handling an order may request that a
COA-eligible order initiate a COA.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ CBOE Rule 6.53C, Interpretation and Policy .04 provides
that Trading Permit Holders routing complex orders directly to the
COB may request that the complex orders initiate a COA on a class-
by-class basis and Trading Permit Holders with resting complex
orders on PAR may request that complex orders initiate a COA on an
order-by-order basis.
    \12\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 13362.
    \13\ CBOE believes that permitting orders resting on PAR to
initiate a COA is consistent with other CBOE rules. See id. at n. 15
and accompanying text (citing to CBOE Rule 6.53C(d), which,
according to the Exchange, states that complex orders may be subject
to a COA once on PAR, and CBOE Rule 6.53C, Interpretation and Policy
.04(a), which, according to the Exchange, states that Trading Permit
Holders with resting complex orders on PAR may request that complex
orders initiate a COA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the Exchange, this proposed rule change will address
the concern that market makers may reduce the size of their quotations
in the leg markets because of the presence of certain complex orders
that are designed to circumvent the ``Quote Risk Monitor Mechanism''
(``QRM'') settings established by market makers.\14\ CBOE describes the
QRM as a functionality designed to help market makers provide liquidity
across most series in their appointed classes without being at risk of
executing the full cumulative size of all their quotes before being
given adequate opportunity to adjust their quotes.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 13363.
    \15\ See id. at 13361.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The QRM, according to CBOE, generally operates by allowing market
makers to set a variety of parameters, which, if triggered, will cause
the System to cancel a market maker's quotes in all series in an
appointed class after executing the order that triggered the
parameter.\16\ CBOE states that the System performs the QRM parameter
calculations to determine if the QRM has been triggered after each
execution against a market maker's quotes.\17\ According to the
Exchange, when a complex order legs into the regular market (i.e.,
executes against individual quotes for each of the legs in the regular
market), all of the legs of a complex order are considered as a single
execution for purposes of the QRM, and not as a series of individual
transactions, because each leg of the complex order is contingent on
the other leg.\18\ Thus, the System performs the QRM parameter
calculations after the entire complex order executes against interest
in the regular market. In contrast, if the legs of the complex order
had been submitted to the regular market separately and without any
complex order contingency, the System would perform the QRM parameter
calculations after each leg executed against interest in the regular
market. According to the Exchange, this differential treatment may
result in market makers exceeding their risk parameters by a greater
number of contracts when complex orders leg into the regular
market.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See id. at 13360-61. CBOE states that the System performs
the parameter calculations after an execution against a market maker
quote occurs in order to assure that all quotations are firm for
their full size. See id. at 13361.
    \17\ See id.
    \18\ See id.
    \19\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the potential risk to market makers of
complex orders legging into the regular market limits the amount of
liquidity that market makers are willing to provide in the regular
market.\20\ In particular, according to the Exchange, market makers may
reduce the size of their quotations in the regular market because of
the presence of these complex orders that are designed to circumvent
QRM and risk the execution of the cumulative size of market makers'
quotations across multiple series without market makers' being aware of
these complex orders or having an opportunity to adjust their
quotes.\21\ Accordingly, the Exchange believes that reducing market
maker risk in the regular market by requiring complex orders in Hybrid
classes with three or more legs to be subject to a COA--which will
allow market makers to react accordingly, including adjusting their
quotes to avoid the circumvention of their QRM parameter settings--will
benefit investors by encouraging market makers to provide additional
liquidity in the regular market and enhance competition in those
classes.\22\ According to the Exchange, this potential benefit to
investors far exceeds any ``perceived detriment'' to requiring certain
complex orders to be subject to a COA prior to potential interaction
with the leg markets.\23\ The Exchange notes that complex orders with
three or more legs will still have opportunities for execution through
a COA, in the COB or in the leg markets if they do not execute at the
end of the COA.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 13362.
    \21\ See id.
    \22\ See id.
    \23\ See id.
    \24\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Notice, the Exchange states that it will announce the
implementation date of the proposed rule change in a Regulatory
Circular to be published no later than 90 days following the effective
date of this proposed rule change.\25\ The Exchange also states that
the implementation date will be no later than 180 days following the
effective date of this proposed rule change.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 13363.
    \26\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove SR-CBOE-
2014-017 and Grounds for Disapproval Under Consideration

    The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section
19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \27\ to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be approved or disapproved. Institution of such
proceedings is appropriate at this time in view of the legal and policy
issues raised by the proposed rule change, as discussed below.
Institution of proceedings does not indicate that the Commission has
reached any conclusions with respect to any of the issues involved.
Rather, as described in greater detail below, the Commission seeks and
encourages interested persons to provide additional comment on the
proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,\28\ the Commission is
providing

notice of the grounds for disapproval under consideration. The
Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional analysis
of, and input from commenters with respect to, the proposed rule
change's consistency with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, which require
that the rules of a national securities exchange be designed, among
other things, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest; and not be designed to permit unfair discrimination
between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Id. Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act also provides
that proceedings to determine whether to disapprove a proposed rule
change must be concluded within 180 days of the date of publication
of notice of the filing of the proposed rule change. See id. The
time for conclusion of the proceedings may be extended for up to 60
days if the Commission finds good cause for such extension and
publishes its reasons for so finding. See id.
    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Procedure: Request for Written Comments

    The Commission requests that interested persons provide written
submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the
concerns identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have
with the proposed rule change. In particular, the Commission invites
the written views of interested persons concerning whether the proposal
is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) \30\ or any other provision of the
Act, or the rules and regulations thereunder. Although there do not
appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval which would
be facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments,
the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4, any request for
an opportunity to make an oral presentation.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Id.
    \31\ Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, as amended by the Securities
Acts Amendments of 1975, Public Law 94-29 (June 4, 1975), grants the
Commission flexibility to determine what type of proceeding--either
oral or notice and opportunity for written comments--is appropriate
for consideration of a particular proposal by a self-regulatory
organization. See Securities Act Amendments of 1975, Senate Comm. on
Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs, S. Reps. No. 75, 94th Cong., 1st
Sess. 30 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments regarding whether the proposed rule change should be approved
or disapproved by July 2, 2014. Any person who wishes to file a
rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by
July 16, 2014. The Commission asks that commenters address the
sufficiency and merit of the Exchange's statements in support of the
proposed rule change, in addition to any other comments they may wish
to submit about the proposed rule change. In particular, the Commission
seeks comment on the following:
    1. According to the Exchange, the proposed rule change is designed
to limit a market maker's risk against executions of complex orders
with three or more legs. Please provide data, if available, showing how
the execution of such orders against market maker quotes in the regular
market affects a market maker's risk exposure, including for complex
orders with only three legs.
    2. Do commenters agree with CBOE's assertion that the potential
risk to market makers in the regular market that may result from
complex orders with three or more legs legging into the regular market
outweighs the potential benefit of continuing to allow a COA to remain
voluntary for complex orders with three or more legs? If so, why? If
not, why not?
    3. Do commenters agree with CBOE's assertion that the proposed rule
change would encourage market makers to provide additional liquidity on
the Exchange? If so, why? If not, why not? To the extent possible,
please provide supporting data.
    4. Do commenters agree with CBOE's assertion that any resulting
benefit to investors far exceeds any ``perceived detriment'' of
requiring certain complex orders to be subject to a COA prior to
potential interaction with the leg markets? If so, why? If not, why
not? What are the possible ``perceived detriment[s]'' that could result
from the proposal?
    5. The proposed rule change would require that complex orders of
three or more legs be subject to a COA prior to potential interaction
with the leg markets. What are commenters' views on the impact of such
a requirement on the execution of such complex orders? Please explain.
    6. Do commenters agree with CBOE's assertion that market makers may
reduce the size of their quotations if complex orders of three or more
legs are able to execute against the leg markets? Have market makers
already begun to reduce the size of their quotations as a result of
such orders? If so, when did market makers begin reducing the size of
their quotes? Was there a particular event or other change that
resulted in additional executions against the leg markets that, in
turn, prompted market makers to begin changing the size of their
quotes? To the extent possible, please provide supporting data.
    Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2014-017 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-CBOE-2014-017. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filings 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-CBOE-2014-017 and should be
submitted on or before July 2, 2014. Rebuttal comments should be
submitted by July 16, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-13559 Filed 6-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 247 (Tuesday, December 24, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77765-77769]
[FR Doc No: 2013-30593]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71130; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2013-143]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Offer Partial
Cabinets and Cabinet Upgrades As Part of Its Co-location Services and
to Amend the NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule and the NYSE Arca Equities
Schedule of Fees and Charges for Exchange Services to Reflect the New
Services

December 18, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on December 12, 2013, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE Arca'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to to offer partial cabinets and cabinet
upgrades as part of its co-location services and to amend the NYSE Arca
Options Fee Schedule (``Options Fee Schedule'') and the NYSE Arca
Equities Schedule of Fees and Charges for Exchange Services (``Equities
Fee Schedule'' and, together with the Options Fee Schedule, ``Fee
Schedules'') to reflect the new services. The Exchange proposes to
implement the fee change effective December 16, 2013. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those 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 parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to offer partial cabinets and cabinet
upgrades as part of its co-location services and to amend the Fee
Schedules to reflect the new services.\4\ The Exchange proposes to

implement the fee change effective December 16, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'')
initially approved the Exchange's co-location services in Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 63275 (November 8, 2010), 75 FR 70048
(November 16, 2010) (SR-NYSEArca-2010-100) (the ``Original Co-
location Approval''). The Exchange operates a data center in Mahwah,
New Jersey (the ``data center'') from which it provides co-location
services to Users. The Exchange's co-location services allow Users
to rent space in the data center so they may locate their electronic
servers in close physical proximity to the Exchange's trading and
execution system. See id. at 70049.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Partial Cabinets
    A User is able to request a physical cabinet to house its servers
and other equipment in the data center.\5\ Currently, a User only has
the option of receiving an entire cabinet that is dedicated solely to
that User (``dedicated cabinet''). The Exchange proposes to expand its
co-location services to offer a partial cabinet alternative (``partial
cabinet''). Partial cabinets would be made available in increments of
eight-rack units of space.\6\ The Exchange would allocate each eight-
rack unit up to two kilowatts (``kWs'') of power.\7\ Consistent with
existing pricing for dedicated cabinets, the Exchange would charge
Users an initial fee and a monthly recurring fee for partial cabinets.
The initial fee would be $2,500 per eight-rack unit. The monthly
recurring fee would be $1,500 for one kW of allocated power and $2,700
for two kWs of allocated power.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For purposes of the Exchange's co-location services, the
term ``User'' includes (i) ETP Holders and Sponsored Participants
that are authorized to obtain access to the NYSE Arca Marketplace
pursuant to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.29 (see NYSE Arca Equities
Rule 1.1(yy)); (ii) OTP Holders, OTP Firms and Sponsored
Participants that are authorized to obtain access to the NYSE Arca
System pursuant to NYSE Arca Options Rule 6.2A (see NYSE Arca
Options Rule 6.1A(a)(19)); and (iii) non-ETP Holder, non-OTP Holder
and non-OTP Firm broker-dealers and vendors that request to receive
co-location services directly from the Exchange. See, e.g.,
Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 65970 (December 15, 2011), 76
FR 79242 (December 21, 2011) (SR-NYSEArca-2011-74) and 65971
(December 15, 2011), 76 FR 79267 (December 21, 2011) (SR-NYSEArca-
2011-75). As specified in the Fee Schedules, a User that incurs co-
location fees for a particular co-location service pursuant thereto
would not be subject to co-location fees for the same co-location
service charged by the Exchange's affiliates NYSE MKT LLC and New
York Stock Exchange LLC. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
70173 (August 13, 2013), 78 FR 50459 (August 19, 2013) (SR-NYSEArca-
2013-80).
    \6\ A full cabinet includes enough space for approximately four
separate eight-rack units. The Exchange would submit a separate
proposed rule change if it decided to change the manner in which
space is allocated within a partial cabinet (e.g., six-rack units
instead of eight-rack units).
    \7\ The Exchange would submit a separate proposed rule change if
it decided to change the manner in which power is allocated to
partial cabinets (e.g., more than two kWs of power allocated per
eight-rack unit).
    \8\ The second kW would therefore cost $1,200. Power allocated
to a User of a partial cabinet would be considered separate from
power allocated to the same User if it also has dedicated cabinets
in the data center.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing this partial cabinet alternative in order
to assist Users that do not need a dedicated cabinet in the data
center, such as those Users with minimal power or cabinet space
demands, including those Users for which the costs attendant with a
dedicated cabinet are too burdensome. However, Users that do require a
dedicated cabinet could continue to request them.\9\ This proposed
alternative would not impact current pricing for dedicated cabinets.
The Exchange would amend the existing table in the Fee Schedules to
reflect the pricing options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ For purposes of comparison, if a User ordered a single
eight-rack unit in a partial cabinet with two kWs of power
allocation, such User would be charged $2,500 in initial cabinet
fees (compared to $5,000 for a dedicated cabinet) and $2,700 in
recurring monthly fees (compared to $4,800 for a dedicated cabinet
with the minimum power allocation of four kWs) for total charges of
$34,900 within the first year (compared to $62,600 for a dedicated
cabinet). A partial cabinet would therefore be a more economical
option. If a User ordered two separate eight-rack units in a partial
cabinet with two kWs of power allocation each (four kWs total), such
User would be charged $5,000 in initial cabinet fees (identical to
the $5,000 for a dedicated cabinet) and $5,400 in recurring monthly
fees (compared to $4,800 for a dedicated cabinet with the minimum
power allocation of four kWs) for total charges of $69,800 within
the first year (compared to $62,600 for a dedicated cabinet). A
dedicated cabinet would therefore be a more economical option. Based
on the proposed pricing, the Exchange believes that the partial
cabinet option would be selected by Users with power demands of
three kWs or less. If a User's power demands are four kWs or greater
it would likely choose the dedicated cabinet option. Accordingly, if
a User ordered two separate eight-rack units in a partial cabinet
with two kWs of power allocation for one of the units and one kW of
power allocation for the other unit (three kWs total), such User
would be charged $5,000 in initial cabinet fees (identical to the
$5,000 for a dedicated cabinet) and $4,200 in recurring monthly fees
(compared to $4,800 for a dedicated cabinet with the minimum power
allocation of four kWs) for total charges of $55,400 within the
first year (compared to $62,600 for a dedicated cabinet). A fourth
incremental kW would add an additional $14,400 in cost (i.e., $1,200
x 12), at which point a dedicated cabinet would be a more economical
option.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Users that have several cabinets within the data center that wish
to enhance privacy around their cabinets are able to purchase cages.
Because more than one User could be using a partial cabinet, partial
cabinets could not be located in a User's cage.
Initial Install Services Fee
    In conjunction with the proposed offering of partial cabinets, the
Exchange also proposes to charge a lower Initial Install Services fee
for a partial cabinet. The proposed fee would be lower because the
services required of the Exchange for the installation of an eight-rack
unit in a partial cabinet would be less than the services required for
the installation of a dedicated cabinet. The current Initial Install
Services fee is $800 per dedicated cabinet, which includes initial
racking of equipment in the dedicated cabinet and provision of up to 10
cables and four hours of labor. The Exchange proposes to charge a $400
Initial Install Services fee for an eight-rack unit in a partial
cabinet, which would include initial racking of equipment and provision
of up to five cables and two hours of labor.
Cabinet Upgrades
    The Exchange makes dedicated cabinets available with standard power
allocation of either four or eight kWs.\10\ However, Users that require
additional power allocation may prefer to maintain their hardware
within a particular dedicated cabinet rather than add an additional
dedicated cabinet. Specifically, Users may develop their hardware
infrastructure within a particular dedicated cabinet in such a way
that, if expansion of such hardware is needed, it can be accomplished
within the space constraints of that particular dedicated cabinet. If
this type of User requires additional power allocation, it would likely
want to so modify its existing cabinet rather than taking an additional
dedicated cabinet due to the expense of re-developing its
infrastructure within such additional dedicated cabinet. A $5,000
initial dedicated cabinet fee would also apply if the User received an
additional dedicated cabinet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ A User is generally able to determine an approximate amount
of power that it will typically consume in its dedicated cabinet. A
User would request either a four or eight kW dedicated cabinet based
on its anticipated peak power consumption. A User's typical power
consumption would be expected to be less than this anticipated peak
power consumption, but could also rise above this anticipated peak
power consumption during certain times of the day or certain periods
of the month when equipment in the cabinet consumes additional
power.
    The Exchange allocates power in circuits with ``baseline''
capacity of either four or eight kWs. A circuit could trip when
power consumption exceeds capacity. To avoid this, the Exchange
allocates ``buffer'' capacity in addition to the baseline capacity.
When combined, this ``total'' allocation is approximately 80% of the
amount of power consumption that would trip a circuit. The ``total''
power capacity allocated to a four kW dedicated cabinet is slightly
more than five kWs. The ``total'' power capacity allocated to an
eight kW dedicated cabinet is between 10 and 11 kWs. The Exchange
charges Users for the full baseline amount of power allocated to
dedicated cabinets (i.e., either four or eight kWs) regardless of
whether such allocated power is consumed and, if any of the buffer
is used, for that power consumption as well on a per kW basis. For
example, if a User consumes its four kWs of baseline allocation and
a fraction of an additional kW, the Exchange would charge the User
for five kWs total.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to offer a new ``Cabinet Upgrade''
alternative and related fee in order to accommodate requests for
additional power allocation beyond the typical amount that the Exchange
allocates per dedicated cabinet, at which point the Exchange must
upgrade the cabinet's power

capacity. These Cabinet Upgrades typically entail overhauling wiring,
circuitry and hardware for the dedicated cabinet so that it can handle
the increased power. Cabinet Upgrades require additional Exchange
resources beyond those covered under the initial dedicated cabinet fee
or the Initial Install Services fee, including with respect to labor
and equipment.
    The Exchange proposes to charge a one-time Cabinet Upgrade fee of
$9,200 when a User requests additional power allocation for its
dedicated cabinet such that the Exchange must upgrade the dedicated
cabinet's capacity. A Cabinet Upgrade would be required when power
allocation demands exceed 11 kWs.\11\ However, in order to incentivize
Users to upgrade their dedicated cabinets, the Exchange proposes that
the Cabinet Upgrade fee would be $4,600 for a User that submits a
written order for a Cabinet Upgrade by January 31, 2014, provided that
the Cabinet Upgrade becomes fully operational by March 31, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ A dedicated cabinet could be upgraded to accommodate a
total allocation of up to approximately 20 kWs of power, after which
a User would require an additional dedicated cabinet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

General
    As is the case with all Exchange co-location arrangements, (i)
neither a User nor any of the User's customers would be permitted to
submit orders directly to the Exchange unless such User or customer is
an ETP Holder, an OTP Holder or OTP Firm, a Sponsored Participant or an
agent thereof (e.g., a service bureau providing order entry services);
(ii) use of the co-location services proposed herein would be
completely voluntary and available to all Users on a non-discriminatory
basis; \12\ and (iii) a User would only incur one charge for the
particular co-location service described herein, regardless of whether
the User connects only to the Exchange or to the Exchange and one or
both of its affiliates.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ As is currently the case, Users that receive co-location
services from the Exchange will not receive any means of access to
the Exchange's trading and execution systems that is separate from,
or superior to, that of other Users. In this regard, all orders sent
to the Exchange enter the Exchange's trading and execution systems
through the same order gateway, regardless of whether the sender is
co-located in the data center or not. In addition, co-located Users
do not receive any market data or data service product that is not
available to all Users, although Users that receive co-location
services normally would expect reduced latencies in sending orders
to, and receiving market data from, the Exchange.
    \13\ See SR-NYSEArca-2013-80, supra note 5 at 50459. The
Exchange's affiliates have also submitted the same proposed rule
change to provide for partial cabinets, Cabinet Upgrades and related
fees. See SR-NYSEMKT-2013-103 and SR-NYSE-2013-81.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed change is not otherwise intended to address any other
issues relating to co-location services and/or related fees, and the
Exchange is not aware of any problems that Users would have in
complying with the proposed change.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\14\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(5) of the Act,\15\ in particular, because
it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to, and
perfect the mechanisms of, a free and open market and a national market
system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest
and because it is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposal is not designed to permit
unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
First, the proposed partial cabinets would make an alternative
available to Users that do not need a dedicated cabinet in the data
center, such as those Users with minimal power or cabinet space
demands, including those Users for which the costs attendant with a
dedicated cabinet are too burdensome. However, Users that do require a
dedicated cabinet could continue to request them. Second, the proposed
Cabinet Upgrades would make an alternative available to Users that have
already invested in hardware infrastructure within a particular
dedicated cabinet and that require additional power allocation, but do
not want an additional dedicated cabinet due to the expense of re-
developing infrastructure within such additional dedicated cabinet. The
Exchange believes that the proposal would remove impediments to, and
perfect the mechanisms of, a free and open market and a national market
system and, in general, protect investors and the public interest
because it would provide Users with additional choices with respect to
the optimal size of their cabinets and the number of cabinets they
utilize, which could therefore lead to cost savings that Users may
choose to pass on to their customers.
    The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\16\ in particular, because
it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among its members, issuers and other persons using its
facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between customers,
issuers, brokers or dealers. Overall, the Exchange believes that the
proposed change is consistent with the Act because the Exchange offers
the co-location services described herein (i.e., the proposed partial
cabinets and Cabinet Upgrades) as a convenience to Users, but in doing
so will incur certain costs, including costs related to the data center
facility, hardware and equipment and costs related to personnel
required for initial installation and ongoing monitoring, support and
maintenance of such services. Additionally, the proposed fees relate to
the level of services provided by the Exchange and, in turn, received
by the User.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes that the proposed pricing for partial
cabinets is reasonable because a partial cabinet would be a more
economical option for certain Users that require only limited power or
limited cabinet space, as compared to pricing for a dedicated cabinet,
whereas a dedicated cabinet would be a more economical option for
certain Users that have higher power or space demands.\17\ The proposed
pricing for partial cabinets and the Cabinet Upgrade fee is also
reasonable because it would allow Users to select options that are
better suited for their needs (e.g., a dedicated cabinet compared to a
partial cabinet and a Cabinet Upgrade compared to an additional
dedicated cabinet).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See, e.g., supra note 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed pricing for partial cabinets is also reasonable
because it is comparable to pricing for ``shared cabinet space''
available to users of co-location facilities of The NASDAQ Stock Market
LLC (``NASDAQ'').\18\ Specifically, NASDAQ charges $600 for 500 watts
(``Ws'') of power allocation in shared cabinet space. If a NASDAQ co-
location user were to request up to two kWs of allocated power in
shared cabinet space it would be charged $2,400 per month (one kW is
equal to 1,000 Ws and two kWs is therefore equal to 2,000 Ws), which is
comparable to the proposed $2,700 monthly recurring charge for the same
power allocation in an eight-rack unit in a

partial cabinet in the data center. However, the Exchange understands
that each unit of NASDAQ shared cabinet space is smaller in space than
the partial cabinets proposed by the Exchange (e.g., four-rack units on
NASDAQ compared to eight-rack units in the Exchange's data center).\19\
The Exchange also believes that the proposed Initial Install Services
fee for a partial cabinet is reasonable because it is 50% of the
dedicated cabinet Initial Install Services fee and likewise provides
for 50% of the resources (i.e., two hours of labor instead of four
hours and five cables instead of 10 cables) associated with the
dedicated cabinet Initial Install Services fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See NASDAQ Rule 7034.
    \19\ NASDAQ's initial fee for shared cabinet space is charged on
an hourly basis and is therefore difficult to compare to the
proposed initial fee for partial cabinets in the Exchange's data
center, which is fixed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that the Cabinet Upgrade fee is
reasonable because it would function similar to the NASDAQ charges for
comparable services. In particular, NASDAQ charges a premium initial
installation fee of $7,000 for a ``Super High Density Cabinet''
(between 10 kWs and 17.3 kWs) compared to $3,500 for other types of
cabinets with less power.\20\ The Exchange charges only one flat rate
for its initial cabinet fees ($5,000), regardless of the amount of
power allocation. NASDAQ also charges an additional $7,000 for a Super
High Density Cabinet Kit in relation to the additional customized
equipment required to adequately cool a Super High Density Cabinet.\21\
The Exchange understands that NASDAQ therefore charges at least $10,500
in additional initial costs for a Super High Density Cabinet compared
to other cabinets (compared to the proposed $9,200 Cabinet Upgrade
fee). The Exchange also believes that the proposed Cabinet Upgrade fee
is reasonable because it would permit the Exchange to recover its
expenses related to Cabinet Upgrades.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See supra note 18.
    \21\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed 50% reduced Cabinet Upgrade fee for a User that
submits a written order for a Cabinet Upgrade by January 31, 2014,
provided that the Cabinet Upgrade becomes fully operational by March
31, 2014, is reasonable because it would provide an incentive for Users
to upgrade the capacity of their dedicated cabinets.
    As with fees for existing co-location services, the fees proposed
herein would be charged only to those Users that voluntarily select the
related services, which would be available to all Users. The Exchange
therefore believes that the proposed change is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because it would result in fees being charged
only to Users that voluntarily select to receive the corresponding
services and because those services would be available to all Users.
Furthermore, the Exchange believes that the services and fees proposed
herein are not unfairly discriminatory and are equitably allocated
because, in addition to the services being completely voluntary, they
are available to all Users on an equal basis (i.e., the same products
and services are available to all Users).
    For the reasons above, the proposed change would not unfairly
discriminate between or among market participants that are otherwise
capable of satisfying any applicable co-location fees, requirements,
terms and conditions established from time to time by the Exchange.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant
competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement
regarding the burden on competition.
    For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is
consistent with the Act.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\22\ the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change would not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act because any market participants that are otherwise
capable of satisfying any applicable co-location fees, requirements,
terms and conditions established from time to time by the Exchange
could have access to the co-location services provided in the data
center. This is also true because, in addition to the services being
completely voluntary, they are available to all Users on an equal basis
(i.e., the same range of products and services are available to all
Users).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed partial cabinet and Cabinet
Upgrade alternatives would not impose any burden on competition that is
not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act
because they would enhance competition by making additional choices in
services available to Users and thereby satisfy User demand for partial
cabinets and for dedicated cabinets with increased power capacity. The
proposed change would also enhance competition because it would help
Users meet the growing needs of their business operations. Moreover,
the Exchange believes that the proposed change would enhance
competition between competing marketplaces by enabling the Exchange to
provide services to Users that are similar to services available on
other markets. In this regard, the Exchange notes that NASDAQ also
makes a shared cabinet space option and a ``Super High Density
Cabinet'' option available to users of its co-location facilities.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See supra note 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues if, for example, they deem fee levels at a particular
venue to be excessive or if they determine that another venue's
products and services are more competitive than on the Exchange. In
such an environment, the Exchange must continually review, and consider
adjusting, the services it offers as well as any corresponding fees and
credits to remain competitive with other exchanges. For the reasons
described above, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change
reflects this competitive environment.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \24\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\25\
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (1) Significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (2) impose
any significant burden on competition; and (3) by its terms does not
become operative for 30 days after the date of this filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule
change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
\26\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \25\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \27\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to provide the Commission
with written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change,
along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change,
at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the
proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. The Exchange has met this requirement.

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

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \28\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b4(f)(6)(iii),\29\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative immediately upon filing. The Exchange requested
waiver of the 30-day operative delay in order to immediately implement
the proposed rule change so that Users may experience the benefits of
such proposed change as soon as possible. The Exchange stated that the
proposal would merely make smaller increments of a standard, dedicated
cabinet available on a voluntary basis to Users that do not require a
full, dedicated cabinet. Users that do require full, dedicated cabinets
could continue to request them. The Exchange also stated that the
proposal would provide greater flexibility to Users that prefer to
increase power allocation in a particular dedicated cabinet rather than
incurring the cost of maintaining an additional dedicated cabinet. The
Exchange further represented that it operates in a highly competitive
market in which several competing exchanges already offer similar co-
location services. For the above reasons, the Commission believes
waiver of the operative delay is appropriate and hereby grants the
Exchange's request and designates the proposal operative upon
filing.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \29\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \30\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also 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 such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \31\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please
include File Number SR-NYSEArca-2013-143 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-NYSEArca-2013-143. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2013-143 and should
be submitted on or before January 14, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-30593 Filed 12-23-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: July 28, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 145)]
[Notices]
[Page 43744-43746]
[DOCID:fr28jy08-56]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP08-418-000]

Southeast Gas Storage, LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Black Warrior Storage Project
and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

July 21, 2008.
    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of the Black Warrior Storage Project
involving construction and operation of facilities by Southeast Gas
Storage, LLC (Southeast) in Monroe and Lowndes Counties,
Mississippi.\1\ These facilities would consist of new natural gas
pipeline, abandonment by removal of existing pipeline, new existing
injection/withdrawal wells, new gathering pipelines, a new salt water
disposal pipeline, conversion of existing gas wells to observation
wells, a new salt water disposal well, a new compressor station and a
new meter station. This EA will be used by the Commission in its
decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the
public convenience and necessity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Southwest's application was filed with the Commission under
section 7 of the Natural Gas Act and Part 157 of the Commission's
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the
Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested
agencies on the project. Your input will help determine which issues
need to be evaluated in the EA. Please note that the scoping period
will close on August 20, 2008. Details on how to submit comments are
provided in the Public Participation section of this notice.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, you may be contacted
by a pipeline company representative about the acquisition of an
easement to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities.
The pipeline company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable
agreement. However, if the project is approved by the Commission, that
approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if
easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline
company could initiate condemnation proceedings in accordance with
state law.
    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural
Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?'' was attached to the
project notice Southwest provided to landowners. This fact sheet
addresses a number of typically asked questions, including the use of
eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings.
It is available for viewing on the FERC Internet Web site
(www.ferc.gov).

Summary of the Proposed Project

    Southeast proposes to convert a nearly depleted oil and gas
reservoir into a high-deliverability natural gas storage facility
approximately 3.5 miles northwest of Caledonia in Monroe and Lowndes
Counties, Mississippi. The purpose of this project is to provide 24.7
billion cubic feet of working gas capacity to customers in the region.
Southeast would achieve this capacity by drilling new withdrawal/
injection wells, converting, reworking or plugging existing wells,
constructing lateral and

gathering pipelines, and installing new compression. Southeast
proposes:
     4.6 miles of new 24-inch-diameter lateral pipeline,
designated the Line 547M-100 pipeline, replacing the existing 6-inch-
diameter Line 547E-100 pipeline. The Line 547M-100 pipeline would
extend from the Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company tie-ins to Southwest's
proposed new Hamilton Compressor Station;
     Removal of 11,600 feet of the existing 6-inch-diameter
Line 547E-100 pipeline;
     The new electric driven 24,000-horsepower Hamilton
Compressor Station;
     2.8 miles of 24-inch-diameter gathering pipelines from the
proposed compressor station to seven well pads;
     5,500 feet of 4.5-inch-diameter salt water disposal
piping;
     15 new horizontal withdrawal/injection wells and
associated well pads;
     4 existing active wells to be converted to observation
wells;
     9 plugged and abandoned wells to be converted to
observation wells;
     2 existing active wells to be plugged and abandoned;
     2 existing active wells to convert to injection/withdrawal
wells;
     1 plugged and abandoned well to be re-plugged and
abandoned;
     1 new salt water disposal well and associated well pad;
     1 plugged and abandoned stratigraphic test well drilled
under a Commission exemption to be converted to an observation well;
     A new electrical substation; and
     The new Hamilton Meter Station and interconnect.
    Southeast requests certification by December 31, 2008, for an in-
service date of June 2010. The location of the project facilities is
shown in Appendix 1.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The appendices referenced in this notice are not being
printed in the Federal Register. Copies of all appendices, other
than Appendix 1 (maps), are available on the Commission's Web site
at the ``eLibrary'' link or from the Commission's Public Reference
Room, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, or call (202)
502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary refer to the
last page of this notice. Copies of the appendices were sent to all
those receiving this notice in the mail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction of the proposed facilities would require disturbance
of about 253 acres of widely distributed land surrounding the proposed
Hamilton Compressor Station. This includes 200 acres under new
permanent easement and 53 acres that would be restored to previous land
use following construction.
    Southeast would conduct well drilling, conversion, and abandonment
on a combination of existing and new well pad sites. The 15 new wells
would be constructed on 15 new individual well pad sites, at seven
locations, with well pads ranging in size from 300 by 300 feet to 400
by 425 feet of permanent easement. One new salt water disposal well
would be constructed within a 300 by 300-foot area of new permanent
easement. The proposed Hamilton Compressor Station and associated
electrical substation would occupy a 27-acre area of new permanent
easement. The proposed meter station would occupy 0.6 acre of new
permanent easement. The proposed Line 547M-100 pipeline and the
gathering pipelines would be constructed with a 75-foot-wide typical
construction width within a 50-foot-wide new permanent right-of-way.
Southeast would abandon by removal all of the existing 11,000-foot-long
Line 547E-100 pipeline, which would be replaced in the same trench with
the proposed Line 547M-100 pipeline. Construction and operation of the
salt water disposal pipeline would require 50 and 25 feet of right-of-
way width, respectively. The combined pipeline construction would
require 83 acres of disturbance. Extra work spaces along the pipelines
and well pad areas, contractor yards, horizontal directional drill
sites and access roads would disturb 23 acres of temporary right-of-
way.

The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could
result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
to discover and address concerns the public may have about proposals.
This process is referred to as ``scoping''. The main goal of the
scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important
environmental issues. By this Notice of Intent, the Commission staff
requests public comments on the scope of the issues to address in the
EA. All comments received are considered during the preparation of the
EA. State and local government representatives are encouraged to notify
their constituents of this proposed action and encourage them to
comment on their areas of concern.
    In the EA we \3\ will discuss impacts that could occur as a result
of the construction and operation of the proposed project under these
general headings:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``We'', ``us'', and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the Office of Energy Projects (OEP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Geology and soils
     Water resources
     Wetlands and fisheries
     Vegetation and wildlife
     Threatened and endangered species
     Land use
     Cultural resources
     Air quality and noise
     Reliability and safety, and
     Cumulative impacts
    We will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed
project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to
lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
    Our independent analysis of the issues will be in the EA. Depending
on the comments received during the scoping process, the EA may be
published and mailed to federal, state, and local agencies, public
interest groups, interested individuals, affected landowners,
newspapers, libraries, and the Commission's official service list for
this proceeding. A comment period will be allotted for review if the EA
is published. We will consider all comments on the EA before we make
our recommendations to the Commission.
    To ensure your comments are considered, please carefully follow the
instructions in the public participation section below.

Currently Identified Environmental Issues

    We have already identified several issues that we think deserve
attention based on a preliminary review of the proposed facilities and
the environmental information provided by Southeast. This preliminary
list of issues may be changed based on your comments and our analysis.
     Cultural resources may be affected by the project.
     Federally listed threatened and endangered species are
present in the project area.
     The Hamilton Compressor Station may have visual impacts.
     Route variations for the Line 547M-100 pipeline will be
studied.

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the Black Warrior Storage Project. Your
comments should focus on the potential environmental effects,
reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental
impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful

they will be. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly
recorded, please send in your comments so that they will be received in
Washington, DC on or before August 20, 2008.
    For your convenience, there are three methods which you can use to
submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances please
reference the project docket number CP08-418-000 with your submission.
The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has
dedicated eFiling expert staff available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER>
or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (1) You may file your comments electronically by using the Quick
Comment feature, which is located on the Commission's Internet Web site
at http://www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings. A Quick
Comment is an easy method for interested persons to submit text-only
comments on a project;
    (2) You may file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature, which is located on the Commission's Internet Web site at
http://www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings. eFiling
involves preparing your submission in the same manner as you would if
filing on paper, and then saving the file on your computer's hard
drive. You will attach that file as your submission. New eFiling users
must first create an account by clicking on ``Sign up'' or
``eRegister.'' You will be asked to select the type of filing you are
making. A comment on a particular project is considered a ``Comment on
a Filing''; or
    (3) You may file your comments via mail to the Commission by
sending an original and two copies of your letter to: Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE.,
Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
    Label one copy of the comments for the attention of Gas Branch 2,
PJ11.2.
    As described above, we may publish and distribute the EA for
comment. If you are interested in receiving an EA for review and/or
comment, please return the Environmental Mailing List Form (Appendix
3). If you do not return the Environmental Mailing List Form, you will
be taken off the mailing list.

Becoming an Intervenor

    In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want
to become an official party to the proceeding, or ``intervenor''. To
become an intervenor you must file a motion to intervene according to
Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR
385.214). Intervenors have the right to seek rehearing of the
Commission's decision. Motions to Intervene should be electronically
submitted using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov.
Persons without Internet access should send an original and 14 copies
of their motion to the Secretary of the Commission at the address
indicated previously. Persons filing Motions to Intervene on or before
the comment deadline indicated above must send a copy of the motion to
the Applicant. All filings, including late interventions, submitted
after the comment deadline must be served on the Applicant and all
other intervenors identified on the Commission's service list for this
proceeding. Persons on the service list with e-mail addresses may be
served electronically; others must be served a hard copy of the filing.
    Affected landowners and parties with environmental concerns may be
granted intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they
have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding which would not be
adequately represented by any other parties. You do not need intervenor
status to have your environmental comments considered.

Environmental Mailing List

    An effort is being made to send this notice to all individuals,
organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially
affected by the proposed project. This includes all landowners who are
potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily
for project purposes, or who own homes within distances defined in the
Commission's regulations of certain aboveground facilities. By this
notice we are also asking governmental agencies, especially those in
Appendix 2, to express their interest in becoming cooperating agencies
for the preparation of the EA.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC (3372) or on
the FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary
link. Click on the eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter
the docket number excluding the last three digits (i.e., enter PF06-
398) in the Docket Number field. Be sure you have selected an
appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676,
or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides
access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such
as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries and direct links to
the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.
    Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the
Commission's calendar located at http://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/
EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-17157 Filed 7-25-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 92 (Wednesday, May 13, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 27302]
[FR Doc No: 2015-11543]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG15-83-000.
    Applicants: Goodwell Wind Project, LLC.
    Description: Self-Certification of EG or FC of Goodwell Wind
Project, LLC.
    Filed Date: 5/6/15.
    Accession Number: 20150506-5061.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/27/15.

    Docket Numbers: EG15-84-000.
    Applicants: Breckinridge Wind Project, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Breckinridge Wind Project, LLC.
    Filed Date: 5/6/15.
    Accession Number: 20150506-5156.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/27/15.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1488-005.
    Applicants: Quantum Pasco Power, LP.
    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Quantum Pasco Power Revised
Electric Tariff Filing to be effective 5/7/2015.
    Filed Date: 5/6/15.
    Accession Number: 20150506-5069.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/27/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1489-007.
    Applicants: Quantum Lake Power, LP.
    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Quantum Lake Power Revised
Electric Tariff Filing to be effective 5/7/2015.
    Filed Date: 5/6/15.
    Accession Number: 20150506-5064.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/27/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1046-006.
    Applicants: Kansas City Power & Light Company.
    Description: Compliance filing per 35: KCP&L FSA Rate Schedule 140
Compliance Filing to be effective 4/8/2015.
    Filed Date: 5/5/15.
    Accession Number: 20150505-5170.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1048-005.
    Applicants: KCP&L Greater Missouri Operations Company.
    Description: Compliance filing per 35: KCP&L-GMO FSA Rate Schedule
136 Compliance Filing to be effective 4/8/2015.
    Filed Date: 5/5/15.
    Accession Number: 20150505-5171.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1442-001.
    Applicants: Municipal Energy of PA, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment per 35.17(b): Update to Market-Based
Rate Tariff Application to be effective 5/1/2015 under ER15-1442 Filing
Type: 120.
    Filed Date: 5/6/15.
    Accession Number: 20150506-5091.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/27/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1471-000.
    Applicants: Blue Sky West, LLC.
    Description: Supplement to April 7, 2015 Blue Sky West, LLC tariff
filing.
    Filed Date: 4/30/15.
    Accession Number: 20150430-5428.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1557-001.
    Applicants: Entrust Energy East, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Update to Notice of
Succession and Revised Market-Based Rate Tariff to be effective 4/22/
2015.
    Filed Date: 5/6/15.
    Accession Number: 20150506-5088.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/27/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1673-000.
    Applicants: Southwestern Electric Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): SWEPCO-
Bentonville PSA Amendment to be effective 1/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 5/5/15.
    Accession Number: 20150505-5188.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1674-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., West Penn Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): West
Penn Power submits Service Agreement No. 4119 to be effective 7/5/2015.
    Filed Date: 5/5/15.
    Accession Number: 20150505-5207.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1675-000.
    Applicants: Puget Sound Energy, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Blaine
NITSA, NOA and Interconnection Agreement to be effective 3/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 5/6/15.
    Accession Number: 20150506-5002.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/27/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1676-000.
    Applicants: Balko Wind Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Initial rate filing per 35.12 Initial Filing for Balk
Wind Transmission, LLC to be effective 5/6/2015.
    Filed Date: 5/6/15.
    Accession Number: 20150506-5045.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/27/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1677-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-
05-06 Attachment P GFA Update Filing to be effective 7/6/2015.
    Filed Date: 5/6/15.
    Accession Number: 20150506-5125.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/27/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1678-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Duke Energy Ohio, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Duke
Energy Ohio submits revised Service Agreement No. 3141 to be effective
4/13/2015.
    Filed Date: 5/6/15.
    Accession Number: 20150506-5158.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/27/15.

    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: May 6, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-11543 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P