[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 52 (Monday, March 20, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14388-14392]
[FR Doc No: 2017-05409]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80244; File No. SR-Phlx-2017-24]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Pricing
for NDX and MNX

March 14, 2017.
    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 March 9, 2017, NASDAQ PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III, below,
which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's Pricing Schedule at
Section II, entitled ``Multiply Listed Options Fees,'' \3\ to amend
pricing related to options overlying NDX \4\ and MNX.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ These fees include options overlying equities, ETFs, ETNs
and indexes which are Multiply Listed.
    \4\ NDX represents options on the Nasdaq 100 Index traded under
the symbol NDX (``NDX'').
    \5\ MNX represents options on one-tenth the value of the Nasdaq
100 Index traded under the symbol MNX (``MNX'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqphlx.cchwallstreet.com/ 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 Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend pricing related to NDX and MNX by
adopting Options Transaction Charges for NDX and MNX and also
eliminating the Marketing Fee for NDX and MNX.\6\ The Exchange notes
that both NDX and MNX are transitioning to be exclusively listed on the
Exchange and its affiliated markets in 2017.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Exchange initially filed the proposed pricing change on
February 28, 2017 (SR-Phlx-2017-20). On March 8, 2017, the Exchange
withdrew that filing and submitted this filing.
    \7\ The Exchange will exclusively list NDX and MNX in the near
future upon expiration of open expiries in these products on other
markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today, the Exchange assesses transactions in NDX and MNX the
following Options Transaction Charges for non-Penny Pilot Options: A
$0.75 per contract for electronic Professional \8\ transactions and
$0.25 per contract for floor Professional transactions; $0.25 per
contract for Specialist \9\ and Market Maker \10\ electronic
transactions and

$0.35 per contract for Specialist and Market Maker floor transactions;
$0.75 per contract for Broker-Dealer \11\ electronic transactions and
$0.25 per contract for floor Broker-Dealer transactions; and $0.75 per
contact for Firm \12\ electronic transactions and $0.25 per contract
for Firm floor transactions. Today, Customers \13\ are not assessed a
non-Penny Options Transaction Charge for NDX and MNX transactions.
Also, today, all Non-Customers \14\ are assessed a $0.25 per contract
surcharge in NDX an MNX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The term ``Professional'' applies to transactions for the
accounts of Professionals, as defined in Exchange Rule 1000(b)(14).
    \9\ The term ``Specialist'' applies to transactions for the
account of a Specialist (as defined in Exchange Rule 1020(a)).
    \10\ The term ``Market Maker'' describes fees and rebates
applicable to Registered Options Traders (``ROT''), Streaming Quote
Traders (``SQT'') and Remote Streaming Quote Traders (``RSQT''). A
ROT is defined in Exchange Rule 1014(b) as a regular member of the
Exchange located on the trading floor who has received permission
from the Exchange to trade in options for his own account. A ROT
includes SQTs and RSQTs as well as on and off-floor ROTS. An SQT is
defined in Exchange Rule 1014(b)(ii)(A) as an ROT who has received
permission from the Exchange to generate and submit option
quotations electronically in options to which such SQT is assigned.
An RSQT is defined in Exchange Rule in 1014(b)(ii)(B) as an ROT that
is a member affiliated with an RSQTO with no physical trading floor
presence who has received permission from the Exchange to generate
and submit option quotations electronically in options to which such
RSQT has been assigned. A Remote Streaming Quote Trader Organization
or ``RSQTO,'' which may also be referred to as a Remote Market
Making Organization (``RMO''), is a member organization in good
standing that satisfies the RSQTO readiness requirements in Rule
507(a).
    \11\ The term ``Broker-Dealer'' applies to any transaction which
is not subject to any of the other transaction fees applicable
within a particular category.
    \12\ The term ``Firm'' applies to any transaction that is
identified by a member or member organization for clearing in the
Firm range at The Options Clearing Corporation.
    \13\ The term ``Customer'' applies to any transaction that is
identified by a member or member organization for clearing in the
Customer range at The Options Clearing Corporation which is not for
the account of a broker or dealer or for the account of a
``Professional'' (as that term is defined in Rule 1000(b)(14)).
    \14\ The term ``Non-Customer'' applies to transactions for the
accounts of Specialists, Market Makers, Firms, Professionals,
Broker-Dealers and Joint Back Office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to indicate that the Options Transaction
charges for non-Penny Pilot Options will not apply to NDX and MNX
transactions and instead adopt new pricing for NDX and MNX. The
Exchange proposes to adopt the following Options Transaction Charges
for NDX and MNX. Customers will continue to not be assessed an Options
Transaction Charge for NDX and MNX. Professionals will be assessed the
same $0.75 per contract electronic Options Transaction Charge and an
increased floor Options Transaction Charge of $0.75 per contract \15\
for NDX and MNX transactions. A Specialist and Market Maker will be
assessed an increased electronic Options Transaction Charge of $0.75
per contract \16\ and the same $0.35 per contract floor Options
Transaction Charge for NDX and MNX transactions. A Broker-Dealer will
be assessed the same $0.75 per contract electronic Options Transaction
Charge and an increased floor Options Transaction Charge of $0.75 per
contract \17\ for NDX and MNX transactions. Finally, a Firm will be
assessed the same $0.75 per contract electronic Options Transaction
Charge and an increased floor Options Transaction Charge of $0.75 per
contract \18\ for NDX and MNX transactions. The Exchange will continue
to assess Non-Customers an Options Surcharge for NDX and MNX of $0.25
per contract as is the case today.\19\ The Exchange is proposing to
relocate the surcharge to a new note 5 within the Pricing Schedule
instead of stating the pricing within the current table in Section II
of the Pricing Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Today, a Professional is assessed a $0.25 per contract
floor Options Transaction Charge when transacting NDX and MNX.
    \16\ Today, a Specialist and Market Maker are assessed a $0.25
per contract floor Options Transaction Charge when transacting NDX
and MNX.
    \17\ Today, a Broker-Dealer is assessed a $0.25 per contract
floor Options Transaction Charge when transacting NDX and MNX.
    \18\ Today, a Firm is assessed a $0.25 per contract floor
Options Transaction Charge when transacting NDX and MNX.
    \19\ For clarity, the Exchange is amending the Customer charge
from ``N/A'' to ``$0.00.'' The Exchange believes that $0.00 is more
appropriate to reflect no charge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is also proposing to note that a Marketing Fee \20\
will not be assessed on NDX and MNX. Today, for trades resulting from
either Directed or non-Directed Orders that are delivered
electronically and executed on the Exchange, Specialists, Market Makers
and Directed ROTs are assessed certain fees on those trades when the
Specialist unit or Directed ROT elects to participate in the marketing
program. Specifically, the Exchange assesses options that are trading
in the Penny Pilot Program $0.25 per contract and the remaining equity
options are assessed $0.70 per contract (including NDX and MNX). No
Marketing Fees are assessed on trades that are not delivered
electronically. No Marketing Fees are assessed on Professional orders.
Marketing Fees are assessed on transactions resulting from Customer
orders and are available to be disbursed by the Exchange according to
the instructions of the Specialist units/Specialists or Directed ROTs
to order flow providers who are members or member organizations, who
submit, as agent, Customer orders to the Exchange or non-members or
non-member organizations who submit, as agent, Customer orders to the
Exchange through a member or member organization who is acting as agent
for those Customer orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The Exchange's Marketing Fee helps its Specialists and
Directed Registered Options Traders (``Directed ROTs'') establish
payment arrangements with an order flow provider in exchange for
that order flow provider directing some or all of its order flow to
that Specialist or Directed ROT. This program is funded through fees
paid by Registered Options Traders (``ROTs''), Specialists and
Directed ROTs and assessed on transactions resulting from customer
orders. A Registered Option Trader is defined in Exchange Rule
1014(b) as a regular member of the Exchange located on the trading
floor who has received permission from the Exchange to trade in
options for his own account. See Exchange Rule 1014 (b)(i) and (ii).
A ``Directed ROT'' is an ROT who is a Directed Participant. The term
``Directed Participant'' applies to transactions for the account of
a Specialist or ROT resulting from a customer order that is (1)
directed to it by an order flow provider, and (2) executed by it
electronically on Phlx XL II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\21\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\22\ in particular, in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any
facility, and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation
NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market
model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in
determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current
regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in
promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most
important to investors and listed companies.'' \23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005),
70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting
Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Likewise, in NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission
\24\ (``NetCoalition'') the D.C. Circuit upheld the Commission's use of
a market-based approach in evaluating the fairness of market data fees
against a challenge claiming that Congress mandated a cost-based
approach.\25\ As the court emphasized, the Commission ``intended in
Regulation NMS that `market forces, rather than regulatory
requirements' play a role in determining the market data . . . to be
made available to investors and at what cost.'' \26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir. 2010).
    \25\ See NetCoalition, at 534-535.
    \26\ Id. at 537.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, ``[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is
`fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market
system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-

dealers that act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of
choices of where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can
afford to take its market share percentages for granted' because `no
exchange possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the
execution of order flow from broker dealers'. . . .'' \27\ Although the
court and the SEC were discussing the cash equities markets, the
Exchange believes that these views apply with equal force to the
options markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Id. at 539 (quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No.
59039 (December 2, 2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008)
(SR-NYSEArca-2006-21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to increase the floor Options Transaction
Charges for Professionals, Firms and Broker-Dealers from $0.25 to $0.75
per contract for NDX and MNX is reasonable because the Exchange is
assessing the same transaction fee whether the transaction occurred
electronically or on the Exchange's trading floor for these market
participants. The Exchange's increase for this proprietary product is
competitive when compared with similar proprietary products.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated's
(``CBOE'') Fees Schedule. Russell 2000 Index (``RUT'') options
transactions on CBOE, except customers, are assessed a $0.45 per
contract surcharge. CBOE assesses Professionals and Broker-Dealers a
manual and AIM transaction fee of $0.25 per contract and a non-AIM
transaction fee of $0.65 per contract. CBOE assesses Clearing Trade
Permit Holders a transaction fee of $0.22 [sic] per contract,
subject to a sliding scale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to Specialists and Market Makers, the electronic
Options Transaction Charge for NDX and MNX will be $0.75 per contract,
similar to other Non-Customer market participants. The Exchange
believes that it is reasonable to assess Specialists and Market Markers
the same electronic Options Transactions Charge in NDX and MNX as other
market participants, except Customers. The Exchange's increase for this
proprietary product is competitive when compared with similar
proprietary products.\29\ The Specialist and Market Maker floor Options
Transaction Charge is not being amended and will remain at $0.35 per
contract. The Exchange will continue to assess a Specialist and Market
Maker Options Transaction Charge of $0.35 per contract for floor
transactions in NDX and MNX because the Exchange desires to incentivize
Specialists and Market Makers to continue to make markets in the NDX
and MNX products on the trading floor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See CBOE's Fees Schedule. RUT transactions on CBOE, except
customers, are assessed a $0.45 per contract surcharge. CBOE
assesses market makers a manual and AIM transaction fee of $0.25 per
contract for RUT transactions. CBOE assesses market makers a non-AIM
electronic transaction fee of $0.65 per contract for RUT
transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to increase the floor Options Transaction
Charges for Professionals, Firms and Broker-Dealers from $0.25 to $0.75
per contract for NDX and MNX is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the Exchange will uniformly assess a $0.75 per
contract Options Transaction Charges for all market participants,
except for Customers, Specialists and Market Makers transacting on the
floor, regardless of whether the transaction is submitted
electronically or on the floor. The Exchange believes that assessing
Customers no transaction fee for NDX and MNX is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because Customer orders bring valuable
liquidity to the market, which liquidity benefits other market
participants. Customer liquidity benefits all market participants by
providing more trading opportunities, which attracts Specialists and
Market Makers. An increase in the activity of these market participants
in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional
corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants.
    With respect to Specialists and Market Makers, the electronic
Options Transaction Charge for NDX and MNX will be $0.75 per contract,
similar to other market participants. While this fee is increasing from
$0.25 to $0.75 per contract, the Exchange, as proposed herein, will no
longer assess a Marketing Fee for transactions in NDX and MNX, thereby
effectively lowering the rate. For example, today, a Specialist or
Market Maker transacting an electronic order in NDX or MNX will be
assessed a $0.25 per contract Options Transaction Charge in non-Penny
Pilot Options, a $0.25 per contract Options Surcharge and a $0.70 per
contract Marketing Fee for a total charge of $1.20. With this proposal,
a Specialist or Market Maker transacting an electronic order for NDX or
MNX will be assessed a $0.75 per contract Options Transaction Charge
and a $0.25 per contract Options Surcharge for a total charge of $1.00.
No Marketing Fee would be assessed. While all Non-Customer market
participants would be assessed an electronic Options Transaction Charge
of $0.75 per contract for NDX or MNX, a Specialist or Market Maker will
be assessed a lower total transaction charge as explained above,
compared to today.
    The Exchange believes that assessing Specialist and Market Makers a
lower floor Options Transaction Charge of $0.35 per contract for
options overlying NDX and MNX and a higher electronic Options
Transaction Charge of $0.75 per contract is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory. Unlike other market participants, Specialists and
Market Makers have obligations to the market and regulatory
requirements, which normally do not apply to other market
participants.\30\ They have obligations to make continuous markets,
engage in a course of dealings reasonably calculated to contribute to
the maintenance of a fair and orderly market, and not make bids or
offers or enter into transactions that are inconsistent with a course
of dealings. The differentiation as between Specialists and Market
Makers and all other market participants recognizes the differing
contributions made to the liquidity and trading environment on the
Exchange by these market participants. An increase in the activity of
these market participants in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which
may cause an additional corresponding increase in order flow from other
market participants. Further, Specialists and Market Makers have a time
and place advantage on the trading floor with respect to orders, unlike
other market participants. A Professional, Broker-Dealer or a Firm
would necessarily require a floor broker to represent their trading
interest on the trading floor as compared to a Specialist or Market
Maker that could directly transact such orders on the trading floor.
For these reasons, the Exchange is encouraging Specialists and Market
Makers to transact NDX and MNX on the trading floor and recognizing the
obligations of these market participants as compared to other market
participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See Phlx Rule 1014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that the proposed rule changes are reasonable,
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as NDX and MNX transition to
exclusively listed products. Similar to other proprietary products, the
Exchange seeks to recoup the operational costs \31\ for listing
proprietary products. Also, pricing by symbol is a common practice on
many U.S. options exchanges as a means to incentivize order flow to be
sent to an exchange for execution in particular products. Other options
exchanges price by symbol.\32\ Further, the Exchange notes that with
its products, market participants are offered an opportunity to either
transact options overlying NDX and MNX or separately execute options

overlying PowerShares QQQ Trust (``QQQ'').\33\ Offering products such
as QQQ provides market participants with a variety of choices in
selecting the product they desire to utilize to transact NDX and
MNX.\34\ When exchanges are able to recoup costs associated with
offering proprietary products, it incentivizes growth and competition
for the innovation of additional products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ By way of example, in analyzing an obvious error, the
Exchange would have additional data points available in establishing
a theoretical price for a Multiply Listed Option as compared to a
proprietary product, which requires additional analysis and
administrative time to comply with Exchange rules to resolve an
obvious error.
    \32\ See pricing for RUT on CBOE's Fees Schedule.
    \33\ QQQ is an exchange-traded fund based on the Nasdaq-100
Index[supreg].
    \34\ By comparison, a market participant may trade options
overlying RUT or separately the market participant has the choice of
trading iShares Russell 2000 Index Fund (``IWM'') Exchange-Traded
Fund Shares options, which are also multiply listed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to eliminate the Marketing Fee for NDX and
MNX is reasonable because in light of the transition of NDX and MNX to
exclusively listed products and new pricing, the Exchange is increasing
the Specialist and Marker Maker electronic Options Transaction Charges
for options overlying NDX and MNX. By removing the Marketing Fee,
Specialists and Market Makers will avoid an increase in costs.
    The Exchange's proposal to eliminate the Marketing Fee for NDX and
MNX is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because in light of
the transition of NDX and MNX to exclusively listed products and new
pricing, the elimination of this fee will cause Specialists and Market
Makers to continue to be assessed a lower total charge for the
transaction as compared to other market participants.

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 not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In terms of inter-market
competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more
favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust
its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and with
alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance
with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because
competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because
market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices,
the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this
market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited. In
sum, if the changes proposed herein are unattractive to market
participants, it is likely that the Exchange will lose market share as
a result. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed
change will impair the ability of members or competing order execution
venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets
or will impose any inter-market burden on competition for the reasons
stated above.
    The Exchange's proposal to increase the floor Options Transaction
Charges for Professionals, Firms and Broker-Dealers from $0.25 to $0.75
per contract for NDX and MNX does not impose an undue burden on intra-
market competition because the Exchange will uniformly assess a $0.75
per contract Options Transaction Charges for all market participants,
except for Customers and Specialists and Markets transacting on the
floor, regardless of whether the transaction is submitted
electronically or on the floor. The Exchange believes that assessing
Customers no transaction fee for NDX and MNX does not impose an undue
burden on intra-market competition because Customer orders bring
valuable liquidity to the market, which liquidity benefits other market
participants. Customer liquidity benefits all market participants by
providing more trading opportunities, which attract Specialists and
Market Makers. An increase in the activity of these market participants
in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional
corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants. It
is also important to note that despite the fee increases with respect
to NDX, members may continue to separately execute options overlying
PowerShares QQQ Trust (``QQQ'').\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ By comparison, a market participant may trade options
overlying RUT or separately the market participant has the choice of
trading iShares Russell 2000 Index Fund (``IWM'') Exchange-Traded
Fund Shares options, which are also multiply listed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to Specialists and Market Makers, increasing the
electronic Options Transaction Charge for NDX and MNX from $0.25 to
$0.75 per contract, the Exchange, as proposed herein, does not impose
an undue burden on intra-market competition as the Exchange will no
longer assess a Marketing Fee for on NDX and MNX, thereby effectively
lowering the rate. The Exchange believes that assessing Specialists and
Market Makers a lower floor Options Transaction Charge of $0.35 per
contract for NDX and MNX and a higher electronic Options Transaction
Charge of $0.75 per contract does not impose an undue burden on intra-
market competition. Unlike other market participants, Specialists and
Market Makers have obligations to the market and regulatory
requirements, which normally do not apply to other market
participants.\36\ They have obligations to make continuous markets,
engage in a course of dealings reasonably calculated to contribute to
the maintenance of a fair and orderly market, and not make bids or
offers or enter into transactions that are inconsistent with a course
of dealings. The differentiation as between Specialists and Market
Makers and all other market participants recognizes the differing
contributions made to the liquidity and trading environment on the
Exchange by these market participants. An increase in the activity of
these market participants in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which
may cause an additional corresponding increase in order flow from other
market participants. Further, Specialists and Market Makers have a time
and place advantage on the trading floor with respect to orders, unlike
other market participants. A Professional, Broker-Dealer or a Firm
would necessarily require a floor broker to represent their trading
interest on the trading floor as compared to a Specialist or Market
Maker that could directly transact such orders on the trading floor.
For these reasons, the Exchange is encouraging Specialists and Market
Makers to transact NDX and MNX on the trading floor and recognizing the
obligations of these market participants as compared to other market
participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See note 28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to eliminate the Marketing Fee for NDX and
MNX does not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition because
the elimination of this fee will cause Specialists and Market Makers to
continue to be assessed a lower total charge for the transaction as
compared to other market participants.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or 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.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: (i) Necessary or
appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of
investors; or (iii) 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.

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-2017-24 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-Phlx-2017-24. 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-Phlx-2017-24, and should be
submitted on or before April 10, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-05409 Filed 3-17-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 154 (Friday, August 9, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39235-39237]
[FR Doc No: 2019-17051]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0541; Notice No. 25-19-12-SC]

Special Conditions: The Boeing Company Model 777 Series
Airplanes; Seats With Inertia Locking Devices

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed special conditions.

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes special conditions for The Boeing Company
(Boeing) Model 777 series airplanes. These airplanes will have a novel
or unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology
envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport-category
airplanes. This design feature is an inertia locking device (ILD)
installed in passenger seats. The applicable airworthiness regulations
do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design
feature. These proposed special conditions contain the additional
safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to
establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the
existing airworthiness standards.

DATES: Send comments on or before September 23, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by Docket No. FAA-2019-0541 using
any of the following methods:
     Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/ and follow the online instructions for sending
your comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without
change, to http://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal
information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the
docket website, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all
comments received into any FAA docket, including the name of the

individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an
association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477-19478).
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov/ at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of
the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shannon Lennon, Cabin and Airframe
Safety Section, AIR-675, Transport Standards Branch, Policy and
Innovation Division, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation
Administration, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, Washington 98198;
telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by
sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments
reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
    We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for
comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments
we receive.

Background

    On December 6, 2013, Boeing applied for Type Certificate No.
T00001SE for Model 777-9 series airplanes. On September 19, 2018,
Boeing applied for a change to Type Certificate No. T00001SE for seats
with inertia locking devices in Model 777 series airplanes. The Model
777 series airplane is a twin-engine, transport-category airplane with
a maximum takeoff weight of 775,000 pounds and seating for 495
passengers.

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14
CFR) 21.101, Boeing must show that the Model 777 series airplanes, as
changed, continue to meet the applicable provisions of the regulations
listed in Type Certificate No. T00001SE, or the applicable regulations
in effect on the date of application for the change, except for earlier
amendments as agreed upon by the FAA.
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for Boeing Model 777 series airplanes
because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are
prescribed under the provisions of Sec.  21.16.
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended
later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or
unusual design feature, or should any other model already included on
the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same novel or
unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to
the other model under Sec.  21.101.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, Boeing Model 777 series airplanes must comply with the
fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the
noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in
accordance with Sec.  11.38, and they become part of the type
certification basis under Sec.  21.101.

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    Boeing Model 777 series airplanes will incorporate the following
novel or unusual design features:
    Seats with inertia locking devices.

Discussion

    Boeing has proposed to install, in Model 777 series airplanes,
Thompson Aero Seating Ltd. passenger seats that can be translated in
the fore and aft direction by an electrically powered motor (actuator)
that is attached to the seat primary structure. Under typical service-
loading conditions, the motor internal brake is able to translate the
seat and hold the seat in the translated position. However, under the
inertial loads of emergency-landing loading conditions specified in 14
CFR 25.562, the motor internal brake may not be able to maintain the
seat in the required position. The ILD is an ``active'' device intended
to control seat movement (i.e., a system that mechanically deploys
during an impact event) to lock the gears of the motor assembly in
place. The ILD mechanism is activated by the higher inertial load
factors that could occur during an emergency landing event. Each seat
place incorporates two ILDs; one on either side of the seat pan. Only
one ILD is required to hold an occupied seat in position during worst-
case dynamic loading specified in Sec.  25.562.
    The ILD will self-activate only in the event of a predetermined
airplane loading condition such as that occurring during crash or
emergency landing, and will prevent excessive seat forward translation.
A minimum level of protection must be provided if the seat-locking
device does not deploy.
    The normal means of satisfying the structural and occupant
protection requirements of Sec.  25.562 result in a non-quantified, but
nominally predictable, progressive structural deformation or reduction
of injury severity for impact conditions less than the maximum
specified by the rule. A seat using ILD technology, however, may
involve a step change in protection for impacts below and above that at
which the ILD activates and deploys to retain the seat pan in place.
This could result in structural deformation or occupant injury output
being higher at an intermediate impact condition than that resulting
from the maximum impact condition. It is acceptable for such step-
change characteristics to exist, provided the resulting output does not
exceed the maximum allowable criteria at any condition at which the ILD
does or does not deploy, up to the maximum severity pulse specified by
the requirements.
    The ideal triangular maximum severity pulse is defined in Advisory
Circular (AC) 25.562-1B. For the evaluation and testing of less-severe
pulses for purposes of assessing the effectiveness of the ILD
deployment setting, a similar triangular pulse should be used with
acceleration, rise time, and velocity change scaled accordingly. The
magnitude of the required pulse should not deviate below the ideal
pulse by more than 0.5g until 1.33 t1 is reached, where
t1 represents the time interval between 0 and t1
on the referenced pulse shape as shown in AC 25.562-1B. This is an
acceptable method of compliance to the test requirements of the special
conditions.
    Proposed conditions 1 through 5 address ensuring that the ILD
activates when intended in order to provide the necessary protection of
occupants. This includes protection of a range of occupants under
various accident conditions. Proposed conditions 6 through 10 address
maintenance and reliability of the ILD, including any outside
influences on the mechanism, to ensure it functions as intended.
    The proposed special conditions contain the additional safety
standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a
level of safety

equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to
Boeing Model 777 series airplanes. Should Boeing apply at a later date
for a change to the type certificate to include another model
incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special
conditions would apply to that model as well.

Conclusion

    This action affects only one novel or unusual design feature on one
model series of airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

Authority Citation

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702,
44704.

The Proposed Special Conditions

    Accordingly, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposes the
following special conditions as part of the type certification basis
for Boeing Model 777 series airplanes.
    In addition to the requirements of Sec.  25.562, passenger seats
incorporating an inertia locking device (ILD) must meet the following:
    1. Level of Protection Provided by ILD--It must be demonstrated by
test that the seats and attachments, when subject to the emergency-
landing dynamic conditions specified in Sec.  25.562, and with one ILD
not deployed, do not experience structural failure that could result
in:
    a. Separation of the seat from the airplane floor.
    b. Separation of any part of the seat that could form a hazard to
the seat occupant or any other airplane occupant.
    c. Failure of the occupant restraint or any other condition that
could result in the occupant separating from the seat.
    2. Protection Provided Below and Above the ILD Actuation
Condition--If step-change effects on occupant protection exist for
impacts below and above that at which the ILD deploys, tests must be
performed to demonstrate that the occupant is shown to be protected at
any condition at which the ILD does or does not deploy, up to the
maximum severity pulse specified by Sec.  25.562. Test conditions must
take into account any necessary tolerances for deployment.
    3. Protection Over a Range of Crash Pulse Vectors--The ILD must be
shown to function as intended for all test vectors specified in Sec.
25.562.
    4. Protection During Secondary Impacts--The ILD activation setting
must be demonstrated to maximize the probability of the protection
being available when needed, considering a secondary impact that is
above the severity at which the device is intended to deploy up to the
impact loading required by Sec.  25.562.
    5. Protection of Occupants other than 50th Percentile--Protection
of occupants for a range of stature from a two-year-old child to a
ninety-five percentile male must be shown.
    6. Inadvertent Operation--It must be shown that any inadvertent
operation of the ILD does not affect the performance of the device
during a subsequent emergency landing.
    7. Installation Protection--It must be shown that the ILD
installation is protected from contamination and interference from
foreign objects.
    8. Reliability--The performance of the ILD must not be altered by
the effects of wear, manufacturing tolerances, aging/drying of
lubricants, and corrosion.
    9. Maintenance and Functional Checks--The design, installation, and
operation of the ILD must be such that it is possible to functionally
check the device in place. Additionally, a functional check method and
a maintenance check interval must be included in the seat installer's
instructions for continued airworthiness (ICA) document.
    10. Release Function--If a means exists to release an inadvertently
activated ILD, the release means must not introduce additional hidden
failures that would prevent the ILD from functioning properly.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on August 5, 2019.
Victor Wicklund,
Manager, Transport Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-17051 Filed 8-8-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Responses:

V. Goncarovs Research International Regulatory Consultants P. O. Box 15125 Arlington, VA 22215 ( 703) 920 6773 regulatory@ consultant. com 1. Not aware of any other public source other than the EPA Website.

2. The instructions are very clear on what to do and how to submit the form.

3. Yes, very clear 4. Yes  believe this is a very good idea. Currently not using any type of electronic reporting/ recording options.

5. Yes, some type of security measure should be in place.

6. Whatever is easiest for the Agency 7. There is no CBI information submitted in supplemental distributor forms. However, would be even more inclined if there was the allowance to submit the form to the Agency as a PDF attachment via email.

8. Yes, that is about the average cost.

9. No, could not think of any other costs that should be accounted for that may have been missed, and burden and cost substantially the same as EPA's. Christina Swick Lewis & Harrison 122 C St., NW, Suite 740 Washington, DC 20001 ( 202) 393 3903 wmccombie@ lewisharrison. com Response: " I've reviewed the ICR Renewal for notification of supplemental registration and concur with the information provided by Wendy McCombie in 2003 and have no further comments at this time."

Wendy McCombie consultation response for 2003:

1. No  download it from EPA's website 2. The instructions are very clear on what to do and how to submit the form.

3. Same as answer to question 2.

4. Yes  believe this is a very good idea. Currently not using any type of electronic reporting/ recording options.

5. Would prefer passwords if submitting electronic signatures 6. It doesn't matter.

7. There is no CBI information submitted in supplemental distributor forms 8. Yes, I think that would be about average.

9. No, could not think of any other costs that should be accounted for that may have been missed, and our burden and costs are substantially the same as EPA's. Kim Davis RegWest Company, LLC 30856 Rocky Road Greeley, CO 80631 ( 970) 353 0611 kim@ regwest. com 1. Still download from EPA pesticides website.

2. I suggest that the submission address be provided somewhere in the form; I suggest this information be placed in the " Instructions" section, immediately after " This Notice of Supplemental Distribution must be submitted by the basic registrant." Otherwise, the instructions are clear overall.

3. Yes, the form is clear, logical and easy to complete.

4. Yes, I would be interested in submitting the form electronically. It is very simple these days to scan documents and email them. Sending the completed form in pdf format would save courier expenses and speed up the signature and submission processes.

5. I have no security concerns about signatures. It is pretty standard practice nowadays to email as much as possible, including signed documents.

6. Once again, I have no security concerns regarding signed documents or signatures.

7. There is no CBI presented on this form.

8. The burden rate ( approximately 15 minutes) is a good estimate.

9. No other costs are associated with the preparation of this form.


[Federal Register: May 10, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 90)]
[Notices]
[Page 26613]
[DOCID:fr10my07-46]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-434-000]

Dominion Transmission, Inc.; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC
Gas Tariff

May 4, 2007.
    Take notice that on May 1, 2007, Dominion Transmission, Inc. (DTI)
tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised
Volume No. 1, Original Sheet No. 1138A, to become effective June 1,
2007.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Sec.  154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone
filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on
the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before
the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention 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 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 e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-8980 Filed 5-9-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 32 (Thursday, February 18, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 8186]
[FR Doc No: 2016-03326]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER16-904-000]

Smith Creek Hydro, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Smith Creek Hydro, LLC's application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is March 1, 2016.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also 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>.

    Dated: February 10, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-03326 Filed 2-17-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: November 29, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 228)]
[Notices]
[Page 73062-73063]
[DOCID:fr29no10-56]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13848-000]

Qualified Hydro 27, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Competing Applications

November 19, 2010.
    On September 30, 2010, Qualified Hydro 27, LLC filed an application
for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power
Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Howard A. Hanson
Dam Hydroelectric Project (Howard A. Hanson project) to be located in
King County, Washington, near the town of Palmer. The sole purpose of a
preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority
to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary
permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-
disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by
others without the owners' express permission.

    The proposed project will consist of the following: (1) The
existing 675-foot-long, 235-foot-high earth and rockfill Howard A.
Hanson dam; (2) the existing Howard A. Hanson reservoir, which has a
maximum usable storage of 106,000 acre-feet between elevation 1,206
feet above mean sea level (msl) and elevation 1,035 feet msl; (3) an
800-foot-long steel liner, placed within the existing outlet tunnel,
bifurcated above the existing discharge outlet; (4) a 200-foot-long,
10-foot-diameter steel penstock leading from the right branch of the
bifurcation to the powerhouse; (5) a 40-foot-long, 80-foot-wide
reinforced concrete powerhouse containing one 2-megawatt (MW) and one
3-MW Francis-type turbine; (6) a substation adjacent to the powerhouse;
(7) a 1,000-foot-long, 69-kilovolt (kV) transmission line that will
interconnect with the local utility; and (8) appurtenant facilities.
The estimated annual generation of the Howard A. Hanson project would
be 14 gigawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Ramya Swaminathan, Qualified Hydro 27, LLC, 33
Commercial Street, Gloucester, MA 01930; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Kelly Wolcott,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and
competing applications may be filed electronically via the Internet.
See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
Web site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-
filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support. Although the Commission strongly encourages electronic filing,
documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file, mail an original and
seven copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-13848-000) in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-29858 Filed 11-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P