[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 103 (Wednesday, May 29, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24831-24834]
[FR Doc No: 2019-11236]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-85925; File No. SR-NYSEAMER-2019-19]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Rule 967NY

May 23, 2019.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given
that on May 10, 2019, NYSE American LLC (``Exchange'') 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 amend Rule 967NY (Price Protection--
Orders) to enhance its current price protection mechanisms and adopt
certain new price protection functionality for orders. The proposed
rule change is available on the Exchange's website 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 amend Rule 967NY (Price Protection--
Orders) to enhance its current price protection mechanisms and adopt
certain new price protection functionality for Limit Orders,
specifically, Price Reasonability Checks.
    The Exchange has in place various price check mechanisms that are
designed to prevent incoming orders from automatically executing at
potentially erroneous prices.\4\ These mechanisms are designed to help
maintain a fair and orderly market by mitigating potential risks
associated with orders trading at prices that are extreme and
potentially erroneous. The Exchange proposes to adopt Rule 967NY(c) to
add new price protection mechanisms for orders to help further prevent
potentially erroneous executions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See, e.g., Rules 967NY(a) (trading collars) and (b) (limit
order price filter), Rule 967.1NY (price protection for Market Maker
quotes).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Price Reasonability Checks
    Proposed Rule 967NY(c) would provide Price Reasonability Checks
(the ``Price Checks'' or ``Checks'') for Limit Orders based on the
principle that an option order is in error and should be rejected (or
canceled) when the same result can be achieved on the market for the
underlying equity security at a lesser cost.\5\ The proposed Checks are
based on the consolidated last sale price of the security underlying
the option, once the security opens for trading (or reopens following a
Trading Halt).\6\ The Exchange notes that it currently has price checks
in place for Market Maker quotes that are similar to the checks for
options orders proposed herein (the ``MM Quote Price Checks'').\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A Limit Order is an order to buy or sell a stated number of
option contracts at a specified price, or better. See Rule
900.3NY(b). The proposed Price Checks apply solely to single-leg
Limit Orders and are not available for Complex Orders. The Exchange
notes that Complex Orders are subject to separate price protections.
See Rule 980NY, Commentary .05 (price protection filter) and .06
(debit/credit reasonability checks).
    \6\ See proposed Rule 967NY(c).
    \7\ See Rule 967.1NY (providing two layers of price protection
for quotes. The first layer assesses incoming sell quotes against
the NBB and incoming buy quotes against the NBO; the second layer
assesses the price of call or put bids against a specified (price)
benchmark).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Buy Orders Arbitrage Checks
    Proposed Rule 967NY(c)(1) would protect buyers of puts and calls
from presumptively erroneous executions. A buy order in a put series
provides the right to sell the underlying security at the strike price,
which strike price represents the option's maximum value. Proposed Rule
6.60-O(c)(1)(A) would provide that an order to buy a put would be
rejected or canceled if the price of the order is equal to or greater
than the strike price of the option. For example, assume that SeriesA
is a put series based on Underlying ABC, which has a strike price of
$50.00. FIRM1 submits a new buy order on SeriesA for $50.00, which
would be rejected because it is priced equal to the $50.00 strike
price. Because the Exchange presumes such orders with a price that
equals or exceeds the strike price of the option to be erroneous, the
Exchange believes it would be appropriate to reject or cancel such
orders. In addition to being similar to the MM Quote Check, this
functionality is also available on at least one other options
exchange.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Rule 967.1NY(a)(3) (providing in relevant part that
``[a] Market Maker bid for Put options will be rejected if the price
of the bid is equal to or greater than the strike price of the
option''). See also Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc. (``CBOE'')
Rule 6.14(a)(i)(A) (providing, in relevant part, that quote or buy
limit orders for a put will be rejected if the price of the quote
bid or order is equal to or greater than the strike price of the
option).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A buy order in a call series provides the right to buy the
underlying security at the strike price. Proposed Rule 967NY(c)(1)(B)
would provide that an order to buy a call option would be canceled or
rejected if the price of the order is equal to or greater than the
consolidated last sale price of the underlying security (the ``last
sale price''), plus a dollar amount to be determined by the Exchange
(the ``specified dollar amount'') and announced by Trader Update.\9\ In
general, a derivative product that conveys the right to buy the
underlying should not be priced higher than the prevailing value of the
underlying itself. In that case, a market participant could just
purchase the underlying at the prevailing value rather than pay a
larger amount for the call by incurring the option premium. However,
the Exchange believes a specified dollar amount is reasonable because
in certain situations, market participants opt to execute certain
trades (which may be part of a strategy) even if such trades occur for
a price more than the last sale price.\10\ However, absent the cap

provided by the specified dollar, such trades could occur at prices
that are too far away from the last sale price and would be deemed
potentially erroneous. The Exchange also believes that allowing for the
specified dollar amount above the last sale price for buy orders in
call options would help address certain market scenarios, including
during periods of extreme price volatility. In addition to being
similar to the MM Quote Check, this functionality is also available on
at least one other options exchange.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Exchange anticipates that it would initially set the
specified dollar amount to $0.50 and whether and when that amount
changes would depend upon the interest and/or behavior of market
participants.
    \10\ A small incremental allowance outside of the last sale
price allows for a small premium to offset commissions associated
with trading and may incentivize participants to take the other side
of trades at or slightly outside of the last sale price. For the
participant looking to close out their position, it may be
financially beneficial to pay a small premium and close out the
position rather than carry such position to expiration and take
delivery. The purpose of this rule change is not to impede current
order handling but to ensure execution prices are within a
reasonable range of the last sale price.
    \11\ See Rule 967.1NY(a)(2) (providing in relevant part that
``Market Maker bids for Call options will be rejected if the price
of the bid is equal to or greater than the price of the underlying
security''). See CBOE Rule 6.14(a)(i)(B) (providing, in relevant
part, that quote or buy limit orders for a call will be rejected if
``the quote bid or order is equal to or greater than the
consolidated last sale price of the underlying security'' for equity
and ETF options). CBOE also applies this check to index options
based on the last disseminated value of the underlying index, which
check the Exchange is not proposing in this filing. Unlike the
current proposal, CBOE does not retain discretion to cancel/reject
orders that are a specified dollar amount greater than the strike
price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following examples illustrate this proposed functionality. For
each example SeriesA is a call series based on Underlying ABC, which
has a last sale price of $50.00.
    Example 1: The Exchange-determined specified dollar amount is
$0.00, which means orders equal to or greater than $50.00 will be
rejected (i.e., $50.00 (last sale) + $0.00 (specified dollar amount)).
FIRM1 submits an order to buy a call in SeriesA for $51.00, which would
be rejected because it is greater than $50.00. Similarly, if FIRM1
submits an order to buy a call in SeriesA for $50.00 during pre-open,
the order would be accepted and held until series opens. When SeriesA
opens, the order would be rejected because it is equal to $50.00.
    Example 2: The Exchange-determined specified dollar amount is
$5.00, which means orders equal to or greater than $55.00 will be
rejected (i.e., $50.00 (last sale) + $5.00 (specified dollar amount)).
FIRM1 submits an order to buy a call in SeriesA for $55.00, which would
be rejected because it is equal to $55.00. However, if the FIRM1 were
to submit an order to buy a call in SeriesA for $50.00, this would be
accepted because $50.00 is less than $55.00.
Sell Orders Intrinsic Value Checks
    Proposed Rule 967NY(c)(2) would protect sellers of calls and puts
based on the ``Intrinsic Value'' of an option, which is measured as the
difference between the strike price and the last sale price. A sell
order in a call series creates an obligation to sell the underlying
security at the strike price and a sell order in a put series creates
an obligation to buy the underlying security at the strike price. Thus,
the Intrinsic Value for a call option is equal to the last sale price
minus the strike price; whereas the Intrinsic Value for a put option is
equal to the strike price minus the last sale price.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See proposed Rule 967NY(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 967NY(c)(2)(A) would provide that orders to sell for
both calls and puts would be canceled or rejected as presumptively
erroneous if the price of the order is equal to or lower than its
Intrinsic Value, minus a threshold percentage (the ``threshold
percentage'') to be determined by the Exchange and announced by Trader
Update.\13\ The Exchange believes having a threshold percentage is
reasonable because in certain situations market participants willingly
want to execute certain trading strategies even if such trades occur
for a price less than the Intrinsic Value.\14\ However, absent the cap
provided by the threshold percentage, such trades could occur at prices
that are too far away from the Intrinsic Value and would be deemed
potentially erroneous. In addition, the threshold percentage would
allow the Exchange to account for market scenarios, including during
periods of extreme price volatility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The Exchange anticipates that it would initially set the
threshold percentage to ten percent (10%) and whether and when that
amount changes would depend upon the interest and/or behavior of
market participants.
    \14\ A small incremental allowance outside of the Intrinsic
Value allows for a small premium to offset commissions associated
with trading and may incentivize participants to take the other side
of trades at or slightly outside of the Intrinsic Value. For the
participant looking to close out their position, it may be
financially beneficial to pay a small premium and close out the
position rather than carry such position to expiration and take
delivery. The purpose of this rule change is not to impede current
order handling but to ensure execution prices are within a
reasonable range of the Intrinsic Value of the option.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following examples illustrate this proposed functionality.
    Example 1: SeriesA is a call series based on Underlying ABC, which
has a last sale price of $220.00 and a strike price of $210.00. The
Exchange-determined threshold percentage is 0%, which means the
Intrinsic Value is $10.00. FIRM1 submits a new sell order on SeriesA
for $9.90, which would be rejected because it is below the threshold of
$10.00 ($220.00-$210.00) * (100-0%)/100.
    Example 2: SeriesA is a put series based on Underlying ABC, which
has a last sale price of $210.00 and a strike price of $220.00. The
Exchange-determined threshold percentage is 0%, which means the
Intrinsic Value is $10.00. FIRM1 submits a sell order on SeriesA for
$10.00, which would be rejected because it is equal to the threshold of
$10.00 ($220.00-$210.00) * (100-0%)/100.
    Example 3: SeriesA is a call series based on Underlying ABC, which
has a last sale price of $220.00 and a strike price of $210.00. The
Exchange-determined threshold percentage is 10%, which means the
Intrinsic Value is $9.00. FIRM1 submits a sell order on SeriesA for
$9.90, which would be accepted because it is above the threshold of
$9.00 ($220.00-$210.00) * (100-10%)/100.
Excluded From Price Checks
    Consistent with the operation of the MM Quote Price Checks,\15\
proposed Commentary .01 to the Rule would provide that the Price Checks
would not apply to ``(i) any options series for which the underlying
security has a non-standard cash or stock deliverable as part of a
corporate action; (ii) any options series for which the underlying
security is identified as over-the counter (`OTC' or `Pink Sheets');
(iii) any option series on an index; and (iv) Binary Return Derivatives
(`ByRDs')'' (the ``Excluded Options'').\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Rule 967.1NY, Commentary .01.
    \16\ See proposed Rule 967NY, Commentary .01. See also proposed
Rule 967NY(c) (providing that the Price Checks would apply, ``except
as provided in Commentary .01 to this Rule'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed change would enable the Exchange to implement the
Price Checks and apply the Checks to securities for which there is
reliable price data for the underlying security to perform the Check.
Specifically, like the MM Quote Checks, the Exchange would exclude any
options series for which the underlying security has a non-standard
cash or stock deliverable as part of a corporate action because the
last sale information would not have been adjusted for the non-standard
deliverable, and would therefore be unreliable. Also, like the MM Quote
Checks, options whose underlying security is traded OTC or Pink Sheets
would be considered Excluded Options because the last sale information
for such underlying securities is not available on an active market
data feed. The Exchange would also exclude any options series overlying
a stock index because Exchange does not subscribe to

receive last sale information for such indices. Moreover, like the MM
Quote Checks, the Exchange would exclude options on ByRDs because ByRDS
track a value weighted average price (``VWAP'') and not the last sale
of the underlying security.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See generally Section 17, Binary Return Derivatives, Rules
900ByRDs-980NYByRDs. ByRDs are European-style option contracts on
individual stocks, exchange-traded funds and Index-Linked Securities
that have a fixed return in cash based on a set strike price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with the MM Quote Checks, the Exchange also proposes to
exempt from the Price Check any option series for which the Exchange
determines it is necessary to exclude underlying securities in the
interests of maintaining a fair and orderly market.\18\ The Exchange
believes this proposed change would enable the Exchange to exclude
option series, other than Excluded Options, from the Price Checks if
the Exchange determines that the price protection feature would not
function for the purpose of preventing erroneous orders.\19\ For
example, if the last sale is zero, for whatever reason, the Exchange
would have the discretion to forego the price check for a particular
order. Similarly, if there was some other event or change that impacted
the underlying security (for example if there was a change to the
ticker symbol for the underlying security), the Exchange would retain
discretion to exclude the affected options series from the Price Checks
The Exchange has retained discretion to maintain a fair and orderly
market for the MM Quote Checks and notes that another options exchange
likewise has retained discretion for similar checks as relates to
orders.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See proposed Rule 967NY Commentary .01(v).
    \19\ The Exchange would document, retain, and periodically
review any Exchange decision to not apply the Price Checks,
including the reason for the decision.
    \20\ See Rule 967.1NY, Commentary .01. CBOE Rule 6.14(a)(ii)
(providing that CBOE ``may determine not to apply to a class either
the put check in subparagraph (i)(A) or the call check in
subparagraph (i)(B) above if a senior official at the Exchange's
Help Desk determines the applicable check should not apply in the
interest of maintaining a fair and orderly market'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Technical Change to Limit Order Filter
    Rule 967NY(b) describes the Limit Order Filter, which is another
price protection that rejects limit orders that are priced a specified
percentage away from the contra-side NBB or NBO feature offered by
Exchange. The current Rule provides that limit orders received prior to
the open ``will be rejected immediately before the Exchange conducts a
Trading Auction of Rule 952NY.'' The Exchange proposes to clarify that
such orders are not ``rejected immediately,'' but are instead accepted
and then ``canceled'' before the Exchange conducts the Trading Auction
``per Rule 952NY''--as ``of Rule 952NY'' is not grammatically
correct.\21\ These proposed textual changes would more accurately
reflect the treatment of such orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\See proposed Rule 967NY(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implementation
    The Exchange will announce by Trader Update the implementation date
of the proposed rule change.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\22\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\23\ in particular, in that 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 mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed Price Checks
would protect investors and the public interest and maintain fair and
orderly markets by mitigating potential risks associated with market
participants entering orders at unintended prices and orders trading at
prices that are potentially erroneous, which may likely have resulted
from human or operational error. The proposed Price Checks of the
reasonability of Limit Order prices would assist in the maintenance of
a fair and orderly market and protect investors by rejecting (or
canceling) orders that exceed the corresponding benchmark. With regard
to the proposed use of the specified dollar amount (as relates to buy
orders for call options) and the threshold percentage (as relates to
sell orders for puts and calls), the Exchange notes that in certain
situations, market participants may opt to execute certain trades (that
may be part of a strategy) even if such trades occur outside/away from
the last sale price of the underlying or intrinsic value at seemingly
erroneous prices. The Exchange believes it is appropriate to provide
market participants flexibility to allow them to execute these trading
strategies and therefore to adopt a buffer to permit the execution of
such trades.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Nasdaq ISE, LLC has adopted a buffer when determining the
calculation of the minimum/maximum values for certain complex order
strategies. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83464 (June 19,
2018), 83 FR 29583 (June 25, 2018) (SR-ISE-2018-55).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to have this
flexibility to determine times when the check should not apply to
respond to market events, such as times of extreme price volatility.
This assists the Exchange's maintenance of a fair and orderly market,
which ultimately removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a
free and open market and protects investors and the public interest.
    With regard to the Excluded Options, the Exchange believes that
where no reliable pricing data is available, it is appropriate to
exclude such options from the Price Checks. Without such pricing
information, there is risk that the Exchange may cancel or reject
appropriately priced Limit Orders, which could negatively impact market
participants. Further, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to have
the flexibility to disable the Price Checks in response to a market
event (for example, if dissemination of data was delayed and resulting
in unreliable underlying values) to maintain a fair and orderly market.
This will promote just and equitable principles of trade and ultimately
protect investors.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed Price Checks, which are
substantially similar to the MM Quote Checks, would further mitigate
the risk to market participants that orders are executed at erroneous
prices. Specifically, the Exchange believes that the Price Checks,
which are responsive to member input, will facilitate transactions in
securities and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market by
providing ATP Holders with additional functionality that will assist
them with managing their risk. Thus, the Exchange is proposing the
Price Checks for the benefit of, and in consultation with, ATP Holders.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change will help the Exchange
to maintain a fair and orderly market, and provide a valuable service
to investors.
Technical Changes
    The Exchange notes that the proposed change to Rule 967NY(b)
regarding the treatment of certain orders subject to the Limit Order
Filter would provide clarity and transparency to Exchange rules and
would promote just and equitable principles of trade and remove
impediments to, and perfect the

mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system. The
proposed rule amendments would also provide internal consistency within
Exchange rules and operate to protect investors and the investing
public by making the Exchange rules easier to navigate and comprehend.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change
adds price protection mechanisms for option orders of all ATP Holders
submitted to the Exchange to help further prevent potentially erroneous
executions, which benefits all market participants. The Price Checks
apply in same manner to all ATP Holders that submit orders that are
subject to the Price Checks. The Exchange believes the proposed rule
change would provide market participants with additional protection
from anomalous or erroneous executions.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed enhancement to the
existing price protections would impose a burden on competing options
exchanges. Rather, it provides ATP Holders with the opportunity to
avail themselves of similar protections that are currently available on
the Exchange for Market Maker quotes and on another exchange for
orders.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See supra nn. 8, 11, 15, 19-20, 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed
clarifications to Limit Order Filter would impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act as these changes are not intended to address any
competitive issues and would instead add more specificity, clarity and
transparency regarding this functionality.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \26\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \27\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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-NYSEAMER-2019-19 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-NYSEAMER-2019-19. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAMER-2019-19 and should be submitted
on or before June 19, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\28\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-11236 Filed 5-28-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: October 12, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 196)]
[Notices]
[Page 62533-62534]
[DOCID:fr12oc10-70]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP10-501-000]

Destin Pipeline Company, L.L.C.; Notice of Request Under Blanket
Authorization

October 1, 2010.
    Take notice that on September 20, 2010, Destin Pipeline Company,
L.L.C. (Destin), 550 Westlake Park Boulevard, Houston, Texas, 77079-
2696 filed an application pursuant to Section 7(b), Parts 157.205,
157.208 and 157.212, of the Commission's regulations under the Natural
Gas Act (NGA) for authorization to construct a new interconnection with
Gulf LNG Pipeline, LLC's (Gulf LNG) Destin Meter Station located in
Jackson County, Mississippi, all as more fully set forth in the
application, which is on file with the Commission and open to public
inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the Web at http://
www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number
excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY,
(202) 502-8659.
    Specifically, Destin plans to construct a new interconnection
between its existing 36-inch pipeline and Gulf LNG's Destin Meter
Station that will consist of a new 36-inch hot tap and approximately 35
feet of 36-inch natural gas pipeline.
    Any questions regarding the application should be directed to Bruce
G. Reed, Director, Regulatory Affairs, BP Pipelines (North America),
550 Westlake Park Boulevard, Houston, TX 77079-2696 at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any person may, within 60 days after the issuance of the instant
notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's
Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of
intervention. Any person filing to intervene or the Commission's staff
may, pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's regulations under
the NGA (18 CFR 157.205) file a protest to the request. If no protest
is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall
be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for
protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after
the time allowed for filing a protest, the instant request shall be
treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of
the NGA.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests, and interventions via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-25506 Filed 10-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P