[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 143 (Wednesday, July 25, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43629-43633]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18163]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67466; File No. SR-Phlx-2012-93]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Establish
Managed Data Solution for PHLX Top of Options

July 19, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder \2\ notice is hereby given that
on July 6, 2012, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or the ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Phlx proposes to establish a program for Managed Data Solutions for
PHLX Top of Options data offered by Distributors externally
distributing data to clients and/or client organizations that are using
the TOPO information internally. The text of the proposed rule change
is available at http://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.com, at Phlx's
principal office, 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 III 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
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    PHLX is proposing to create a new data distribution model (a
Managed Data Solution) to further the distribution of the Top of PHLX
Options datafeed (``TOPO''). The Managed Data Solution offers a new
delivery method to firms seeking simplified market data administration.
The Managed Data Solution may be offered by Distributors externally
distributing data to clients and/or client organizations that are using
the TOPO information internally. This new pricing and administrative
option is in response to industry demand, as well as due to changes in
the technology used to distribute market data. Distributors offering
Managed Data Solutions continue to be fee liable for the applicable
distributor fees for the receipt and distribution of TOPO data.
    A Managed Data Solution is a delivery option that will assess a
new, innovative fee schedule to Distributors of TOPO that provide
datafeed solutions such as an Application Programming Interface (API)
or similar automated delivery solutions to recipients with only limited
entitlement controls (e.g., usernames and/or passwords) (``Managed Data
Recipients''). However, the Distributor must first agree to reformat,
redisplay and/or alter the TOPO data prior to retransmission, but not
to affect the integrity of TOPO data and not to render it inaccurate,
unfair, uninformative, fictitious, misleading, or discriminatory. A
Managed Data Solution is any retransmission data product containing
PHLX TOPO offered by a Distributor where the Distributor manages and
monitors, but does not control, the information. However, the
Distributor does maintain contracts with the Managed Data Recipients
and is liable for any unauthorized use by the Managed Data Recipients
under a Managed Data Solution. The Recipient of a Managed Data Solution
may use the information for internal purposes only and may not
distribute the information outside of their organization.
    Currently, the Exchange does not distinguish between Managed Data
Recipients and a recipient of an uncontrolled data product. Some
Distributors believe that the Managed Data Solution is a viable
alternative to an uncontrolled data product. Some Distributors have
even held-off on deploying new PHLX TOPO offerings, pending the
initiation of Managed Data Solutions. Thus, offering a Managed Data
Solution fee schedule would not only result in PHLX offering lower fees
for existing Managed Data Recipients utilizing a Managed Data Solution,
but will allow new Distributors to deliver Managed Data Solutions to
new clients, thereby increasing transparency of the market. PHLX
proposes to establish two fees for Distributors that adopt the Managed
Data Solution to Distributors, a monthly Managed Data Solution
Administration fee of $1,500 and a monthly Subscriber fee of $250. The
proposed monthly License fee would be in addition to the monthly
Distributor fee of $2,500 (for external usage) currently set forth in
Section IX of the PHLX Fee Schedule, and the $250 monthly Subscriber
fee would be assessed for each Subscriber of a Managed Data Solution.
2. Statutory Basis
    PHLX believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\3\ in general, and with Section
6(b)(4) of the Act,\4\ in particular, in that it provides an equitable
allocation of reasonable fees among Subscribers and Recipients of PHLX
data. In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted self-
regulatory organizations and broker-dealers increased authority and
flexibility to offer new and unique

market data to the public. It was believed that this authority would
expand the amount of data available to consumers, and also spur
innovation and competition for the provision of market data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission concluded that Regulation NMS--by deregulating the
market in proprietary data--would itself further the Act's goals of
facilitating efficiency and competition:

    [E]fficiency is promoted when broker-dealers who do not need the
data beyond the prices, sizes, market center identifications of the
NBBO and consolidated last sale information are not required to
receive (and pay for) such data. The Commission also believes that
efficiency is promoted when broker-dealers may choose to receive
(and pay for) additional market data based on their own internal
analysis of the need for such data.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005), 70
FR 37496 (June 29, 2005).

    By removing ``unnecessary regulatory restrictions'' on the ability
of exchanges to sell their own data, Regulation NMS advanced the goals
of the Act and the principles reflected in its legislative history. If
the free market should determine whether proprietary data is sold to
broker-dealers at all, it follows that the price at which such data is
sold should be set by the market as well.
    On July 21, 2010, President Barack Obama signed into law H.R. 4173,
the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010
(``Dodd-Frank Act''), which amended Section 19 of the Act. Among other
things, Section 916 of the Dodd-Frank Act amended paragraph (A) of
Section 19(b)(3) of the Act by inserting the phrase ``on any person,
whether or not the person is a member of the self-regulatory
organization'' after ``due, fee or other charge imposed by the self-
regulatory organization.'' As a result, all SRO rule proposals
establishing or changing dues, fees, or other charges are immediately
effective upon filing regardless of whether such dues, fees, or other
charges are imposed on members of the SRO, non-members, or both.
Section 916 further amended paragraph (C) of Section 19(b)(3) of the
Exchange Act to read, in pertinent part, ``At any time within the 60-
day period beginning on the date of filing of such a proposed rule
change in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (1) [of Section
19(b)], the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend the change in
the rules of the self-regulatory organization made thereby, 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 this title. If the Commission takes
such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under paragraph
(2)(B) [of Section 19(b)] to determine whether the proposed rule should
be approved or disapproved.''
    PHLX believes that these amendments to Section 19 of the Act
reflect Congress's intent to allow the Commission to rely upon the
forces of competition to ensure that fees for market data are
reasonable and equitably allocated. Although Section 19(b) had formerly
authorized immediate effectiveness for a ``due, fee or other charge
imposed by the self-regulatory organization,'' the Commission adopted a
policy and subsequently a rule stipulating that fees for data and other
products available to persons that are not members of the self-
regulatory organization must be approved by the Commission after first
being published for comment. At the time, the Commission supported the
adoption of the policy and the rule by pointing out that unlike
members, whose representation in self-regulatory organization
governance was mandated by the Act, non-members should be given the
opportunity to comment on fees before being required to pay them, and
that the Commission should specifically approve all such fees. PHLX
believes that the amendment to Section 19 reflects Congress's
conclusion that the evolution of self-regulatory organization
governance and competitive market structure have rendered the
Commission's prior policy on non-member fees obsolete. Specifically,
many exchanges have evolved from member-owned not-for-profit
corporations into for-profit investor-owned corporations (or
subsidiaries of investor-owned corporations). Accordingly, exchanges no
longer have narrow incentives to manage their affairs for the exclusive
benefit of their members, but rather have incentives to maximize the
appeal of their products to all customers, whether members or non-
members, so as to broaden distribution and grow revenues. Moreover, we
believe that the change also reflects an endorsement of the
Commission's determinations that reliance on competitive markets is an
appropriate means to ensure equitable and reasonable prices. Simply
put, the change reflects a presumption that all fee changes should be
permitted to take effect immediately, since the level of all fees are
constrained by competitive forces.
    The recent decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit in NetCoaliton v. SEC, No. 09-1042 (D.C.
Cir. 2010), although reviewing a Commission decision made prior to the
effective date of the Dodd-Frank Act, upheld the Commission's reliance
upon competitive markets to set reasonable and equitably allocated fees
for market data. ``In fact, the legislative history indicates that the
Congress intended that the market system `evolve through the interplay
of competitive forces as unnecessary regulatory restrictions are
removed' and that the SEC wield its regulatory power `in those
situations where competition may not be sufficient,' such as in the
creation of a `consolidated transactional reporting system.'
NetCoaltion, at 15 (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 94-229, at 92 (1975), as
reprinted in 1975 U.S.C.C.A.N. 321, 323). The court's conclusions about
Congressional intent are therefore reinforced by the Dodd-Frank Act
amendments, which create a presumption that exchange fees, including
market data fees, may take effect immediately, without prior Commission
approval, and that the Commission should take action to suspend a fee
change and institute a proceeding to determine whether the fee change
should be approved or disapproved only where the Commission has
concerns that the change may not be consistent with the Act.

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

    PHLX does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. Notwithstanding its
determination that the Commission may rely upon competition to
establish fair and equitably allocated fees for market data, the
NetCoalition court found that the Commission had not, in that case,
compiled a record that adequately supported its conclusion that the
market for the data at issue in the case was competitive. PHLX believes
that a record may readily be established to demonstrate the competitive
nature of the market in question.
    There is intense competition between trading platforms that provide
transaction execution and routing services and proprietary data
products. Transaction execution and proprietary data products are
complementary in that market data is both an input and a byproduct of
the execution service. In fact, market data and trade execution are a
paradigmatic example of joint products with joint costs. The decision
whether and on which platform to post

an order will depend on the attributes of the platform where the order
can be posted, including the execution fees, data quality and price and
distribution of its data products. Without the prospect of a taking
order seeing and reacting to a posted order on a particular platform,
the posting of the order would accomplish little. Without trade
executions, exchange data products cannot exist. Data products are
valuable to many end Subscribers only insofar as they provide
information that end Subscribers expect will assist them or their
customers in making trading decisions.
    The costs of producing market data include not only the costs of
the data distribution infrastructure, but also the costs of designing,
maintaining, and operating the exchange's transaction execution
platform and the cost of regulating the exchange to ensure its fair
operation and maintain investor confidence. The total return that a
trading platform earns reflects the revenues it receives from both
products and the joint costs it incurs. Moreover, an exchange's
customers view the costs of transaction executions and of data as a
unified cost of doing business with the exchange. A broker-dealer will
direct orders to a particular exchange only if the expected revenues
from executing trades on the exchange exceed net transaction execution
costs and the cost of data that the broker-dealer chooses to buy to
support its trading decisions (or those of its customers). The choice
of data products is, in turn, a product of the value of the products in
making profitable trading decisions. If the cost of the product exceeds
its expected value, the broker-dealer will choose not to buy it.
Moreover, as a broker-dealer chooses to direct fewer orders to a
particular exchange, the value of the product to that broker-dealer
decrease, for two reasons. First, the product will contain less
information, because executions of the broker-dealer's orders will not
be reflected in it. Second, and perhaps more important, the product
will be less valuable to that broker-dealer because it does not provide
information about the venue to which it is directing its orders. Data
from the competing venue to which the broker-dealer is directing orders
will become correspondingly more valuable.
    Thus, a super-competitive increase in the fees charged for either
transactions or data has the potential to impair revenues from both
products. ``No one disputes that competition for order flow is
`fierce'.'' NetCoalition at 24. However, the existence of fierce
competition for order flow implies a high degree of price sensitivity
on the part of broker-dealers with order flow, since they may readily
reduce costs by directing orders toward the lowest-cost trading venues.
A broker-dealer that shifted its order flow from one platform to
another in response to order execution price differentials would both
reduce the value of that platform's market data and reduce its own need
to consume data from the disfavored platform. Similarly, if a platform
increases its market data fees, the change will affect the overall cost
of doing business with the platform, and affected broker-dealers will
assess whether they can lower their trading costs by directing orders
elsewhere and thereby lessening the need for the more expensive data.
    Analyzing the cost of market data distribution in isolation from
the cost of all of the inputs supporting the creation of market data
will inevitably underestimate the cost of the data. Thus, because it is
impossible to create data without a fast, technologically robust, and
well-regulated execution system, system costs and regulatory costs
affect the price of market data. It would be equally misleading,
however, to attribute all of the exchange's costs to the market data
portion of an exchange's joint product. Rather, all of the exchange's
costs are incurred for the unified purposes of attracting order flow,
executing and/or routing orders, and generating and selling data about
market activity. The total return that an exchange earns reflects the
revenues it receives from the joint products and the total costs of the
joint products.
    Competition among trading platforms can be expected to constrain
the aggregate return each platform earns from the sale of its joint
products, but different platforms may choose from a range of possible,
and equally reasonable, pricing strategies as the means of recovering
total costs. For example, some platform may choose to pay rebates to
attract orders, charge relatively low prices for market information (or
provide information free of charge) and charge relatively high prices
for accessing posted liquidity. Other platforms may choose a strategy
of paying lower rebates (or no rebates) to attract orders, setting
relatively high prices for market information, and setting relatively
low prices for accessing posted liquidity. In this environment, there
is no economic basis for regulating maximum prices for one of the joint
products in an industry in which suppliers face competitive constraints
with regard to the joint offering. This would be akin to strictly
regulating the price that an automobile manufacturer can charge for car
sound systems despite the existence of a highly competitive market for
cars and the availability of after-market alternatives to the
manufacturer-supplied system.
    The market for market data products is competitive and inherently
contestable because there is fierce competition for the inputs
necessary to the creation of proprietary data and strict pricing
discipline for the proprietary products themselves. Numerous exchanges
compete with each other for listings, trades, and market data itself,
providing virtually limitless opportunities for entrepreneurs who wish
to produce and distribute their own market data. This proprietary data
is produced by each individual exchange, as well as other entities, in
a vigorously competitive market.
    Broker-dealers currently have numerous alternative venues for their
order flow, including nine existing SRO markets (plus two more expected
this year) [sic], as well as various forms of alternative trading
systems (``ATSs''). Each SRO market competes to produce transaction
reports via trade executions. Competitive markets for order flow,
executions, and transaction reports provide pricing discipline for the
inputs of proprietary data products.
    The large number of SROs, BDs, and ATSs that currently produce
proprietary data or are currently capable of producing it provides
further pricing discipline for proprietary data products. Each SRO,
ATS, and BD is currently permitted to produce proprietary data
products, and many currently do or have announced plans to do so,
including NASDAQ, CBOE, ISE, NYSE Amex, and NYSEArca.
    Any ATS or BD can combine with any other ATS, BD, or multiple ATSs
or BDs to produce joint proprietary data products. Additionally, order
routers and market data vendors can facilitate single or multiple
broker-dealers' production of proprietary data products. The potential
sources of proprietary products are virtually limitless.
    Market data vendors provide another form of price discipline for
proprietary data products because they control the primary means of
access to end Subscribers. Vendors impose price restraints based upon
their business models. For example, vendors such as Bloomberg and
Thomson Reuters that assess a surcharge on data they sell may refuse to
offer proprietary products that end Subscribers will not purchase in
sufficient numbers. Internet portals, such as Google, impose a
discipline by providing only data that will enable them to attract
``eyeballs'' that contribute to their advertising revenue. Retail
broker-dealers, such as Schwab and Fidelity, offer their customers

proprietary data only if it promotes trading and generates sufficient
commission revenue. Although the business models may differ, these
vendors' pricing discipline is the same: they can simply refuse to
purchase any proprietary data product that fails to provide sufficient
value. PHLX and other producers of proprietary data products must
understand and respond to these varying business models and pricing
disciplines in order to market proprietary data products successfully.
    In addition to the competition and price discipline described
above, the market for proprietary data products is also highly
contestable because market entry is rapid, inexpensive, and profitable.
The history of electronic trading is replete with examples of entrants
that swiftly grew into some of the largest electronic trading platforms
and proprietary data producers: Archipelago, BATS Trading and Direct
Edge.
    Regulation NMS, by deregulating the market for proprietary data,
has increased the contestability of that market. While broker-dealers
have previously published their proprietary data individually,
Regulation NMS encourages market data vendors and broker-dealers to
produce proprietary products cooperatively in a manner never before
possible. Multiple market data vendors already have the capability to
aggregate data and disseminate it on a profitable scale, including
Bloomberg, and Thomson Reuters.
    The court in NetCoalition concluded that the Commission had failed
to demonstrate that the market for market data was competitive based on
the reasoning of the Commission's NetCoalition order because, in the
court's view, the Commission had not adequately demonstrated that the
proprietary data at issue in the case is used to attract order flow.
PHLX believes, however, that evidence not then before the court clearly
demonstrated that availability of data attracts order flow.
    Competition among platforms has driven PHLX continually to improve
its platform data offerings and to cater to customers' data needs. For
example, PHLX has developed and maintained multiple delivery mechanisms
(IP, multi-cast, and compression) that enable customers to receive data
in the form and manner they prefer and at the lowest cost to them. PHLX
has created new products like Depth Data, TOPO and TOPO Plus Orders,
because offering data in multiple formatting allows PHLX to better fit
customer needs. PHLX offers data via multiple extranet providers,
thereby helping to reduce network and total cost for its data products.
PHLX has developed an online administrative system to provide customers
transparency into their datafeed requests and streamline data usage
reporting.
    Despite these enhancements and a dramatic increase in message
traffic, PHLX's fees for market data have remained flat. In fact, as a
percent of total Subscriber costs, PHLX data fees have fallen relative
to other data usage costs--including bandwidth, programming, and
infrastructure--that have risen. The same holds true for execution
services; despite numerous enhancements to PHLX's trading platform,
absolute and relative trading costs have declined. Platform competition
has intensified as new entrants have emerged, constraining prices for
both executions and for data.
    The vigor of competition for proprietary information is significant
and the Exchange believes that this proposal itself clearly evidences
such competition. PHLX is offering a new pricing model in order to keep
pace with changes in the industry and evolving customer needs. It is
entirely optional and is geared towards attracting new customers, as
well as retaining existing customers.
    The Exchange has witnessed competitors creating new products and
innovative pricing in this space over the course of the past year. PHLX
continues to see firms challenge its pricing on the basis of the
Exchange's explicit fees being higher than the zero-priced fees from
other competitors such as BATS. In all cases, firms make decisions on
how much and what types of data to consume on the basis of the total
cost of interacting with PHLX or other exchanges. Of course, the
explicit data fees are but one factor in a total platform analysis.
Some competitors have lower transactions fees and higher data fees, and
others are vice versa. The market for this proprietary information is
highly competitive and continually evolves as products develop and
change.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\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. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall
institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be
approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-Phlx-2012-93 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-Phlx-2012-93. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the

Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
publicly available. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
Phlx-2012-93 and should be submitted on or before August 15, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority. \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-18163 Filed 7-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">

<META name="generator" content="PDFCreactiveX HTML Export">
<META name="creation-date" content="07/10/2008 08:48:47 ">
<TITLE></TITLE>


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 224 (Monday, November 21, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71967-71968]
[FR Doc No: 2011-29925]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RM98-1-000]

Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications; Public Notice

    This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of
the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.
    Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission
decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-
the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested
proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of
the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any
oral communication.
    Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional
file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the
proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited
communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the
decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not
be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a
proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or
contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may
request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and
responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant
such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any
person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record
communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the
official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with
Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.
    Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional
record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a
cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR
385.2201(e)(1)(v).
    The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently
received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications

listed are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings
are available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room
or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov
using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last
three digits, in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, please contact FERC, Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Docket No.                      File date                      Presenter or requester
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prohibited:
    1. CP10-477-000.................  11-7-11...............  Kent Harrington.
    2. CP11-515-000.................  11-10-11..............  Janice O'Keeffe, Kevin O'Keeffe.
Exempt:
    1. CP11-56-000..................  11-7-2011.............  Judith Joan Sullivan.\1\
    2. RM10-23-000..................  11-1-2011.............  John Trued.
    3. CP11-46-000..................  11-1-2011.............  Raymond Bransfield.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Memo to file providing privileged comments regarding the Ramapough Lenape Indian Nation for the New Jersey--
  New York Expansion Project.

    Dated: November 10, 2011.
 Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
 Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-29925 Filed 11-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 50 (Thursday, March 16, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13989-13990]
[FR Doc No: 2017-05203]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2307-078]

Alaska Electric Light & Power Company; Notice of Application
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Motions To Intervene and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: New Major License.
    b. Project No.: 2307-078.
    c. Date filed: August 31, 2016.
    d. Applicant: Alaska Electric Light & Power Company.
    e. Name of Project: Salmon and Annex Creek Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On Salmon Creek and Annex Creek in the City and
Borough of Juneau, Alaska. The project occupies about 648.45 acres of
federal lands located in the Tongass National Forest administered by
the United States Forest Service and operates under an existing license
issued in 1988.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Christy Yearous, Project Manager, Alaska
Electric Light & Power Company, 5601 Tongsard Ct., Juneau, AK 99801-
7201;<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Suzanne Novak at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests: 60 days
from the issuance date of this notice.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
filing motions to intervene and protests using the Commission's eFiling
system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. For assistance,
please contact FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866)
208-3676 (toll free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY). In lieu of electronic
filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The
first page of any filing should include docket number P-2307-078.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person on the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. This application has been accepted for filing, but is not ready
for environmental analysis at this time.
    l. The proposed Salmon and Annex Creek Project would consist of two
developments, one on Salmon Creek and one on Annex Creek.
    The Salmon Creek development consists of the following existing
facilities: (1) The 165-acre Salmon Creek reservoir impounded by a 648-
foot-long, 168-foot-high dam, with ten 5-foot-wide spillway bays; (2) a
1,500-foot-long canal used to periodically divert water from tributary
streams into Salmon Creek Reservoir; (3) a 10-foot-wide, 11-foot-high
intake structure with trashracks; (4) a 3-foot-diameter conduit that
conveys flows from the dam to the project valvehouse located
immediately downstream; (5) a 4,290-foot-long, 3.3- to- 2-foot-diameter
penstock that conveys flows from the valvehouse to the decommissioned
Upper Powerhouse where it connects to a 11,030-foot-long, 3.5-foot-
diameter penstock that narrows to a 2.5-foot-diameter immediately
before entering the Lower Powerhouse; (6) the 57-foot-long, 44-foot-
wide, 32-foot-high Lower Powerhouse, which contains a 6.9-megawatt (MW)
impulse turbine; (7) an approximately 250-foot-long tailrace that flows
underneath Egan Drive and empties into a pond adjacent to the Douglas
Island Pink and Chum, Inc., hatchery; and (8) appurtenant facilities.
    The Annex Creek development consists of the following existing
facilities: (1) The 264-acre Upper Annex Lake, impounded by a 118-foot-
long, 20-foot-high dam with a 57-foot-wide spillway that discharges
flows in excess of those needed for generation into the 27-acre natural
Lower Annex Lake via a 0.15-mile-long outlet stream; (2) a 61-foot
long, 6-foot high timber saddle dam located just west of the main dam;
(3) a lake tap intake on Upper Annex Lake; (4) a 1,433-foot-long power
tunnel that narrows from 8 feet wide and 8 feet high at the intake to a
6.5-foot-diameter tunnel at the project valvehouse;
    (5) the project valvehouse containing the penstock intake; (6) the
7,097-foot-long, 3.5-foot-diameter penstock that narrows to a 2.8-foot
diameter before it bifurcates at the powerhouse to provide flows to two
impulse turbine units with a total installed capacity of 3.675 MW; (7)
the 67-foot-long, 48-foot-wide, 40-foot-high powerhouse; (8) a tailrace
that discharges flows over a weir into Taku Inlet; (9) a 12.5-mile-
long, 23-kilovolt (kV) transmission line that conveys power to the Than
substation; and (10) appurtenant facilities.
    The project currently operates to provide base load generation with
an

estimated annual output of 53.8 gigawatt-hours. No changes to project
operation or facilities are proposed.
    m. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item h above.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    n. Any qualified applicant desiring to file a competing application
must submit to the Commission, on or before the specified intervention
deadline date, a competing development application, or a notice of
intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely notice of
intent allows an interested person to file the competing development
application no later than 120 days after the specified intervention
deadline date. Applications for preliminary permits will not be
accepted in response to this notice.
    A notice of intent must specify the exact name, business address,
and telephone number of the prospective applicant, and must include an
unequivocal statement of intent to submit a development application. A
notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s) named in this
public notice.
    Anyone may submit a protest or a motion to intervene in accordance
with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR
385.210, 385.211, and 385.214. In determining the appropriate action to
take, the Commission will consider all protests filed, but only those
who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's
Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any protests or motions to
intervene must be received on or before the specified deadline date for
the particular application.
    When the application is ready for environmental analysis, the
Commission will issue a public notice requesting comments,
recommendations, terms and conditions, or prescriptions.
    All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title
``PROTEST'' or ``MOTION TO INTERVENE,'' ``NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE
COMPETING APPLICATION,'' or ``COMPETING APPLICATION;'' (2) set forth in
the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the
application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name,
address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening;
and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001
through 385.2005. Agencies may obtain copies of the application
directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to
intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant
specified in the particular application.

     Dated: March 9, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-05203 Filed 3-15-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P