[Federal Register: May 5, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 86)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 24400]
[DOCID:fr05my10-9]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket No. USCG-2010-0188]

National Maritime Week Tugboat Races, Seattle, WA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the Special Local Regulation for
the annual National Maritime Week Tugboat Races in Elliott Bay, WA on
May 8, 2010. This action is necessary to ensure the safety of all
participants and spectators from the inherent dangers associated with
these types of races. During the enforcement period, no person or
vessel may enter or remain in the regulated area except for
participants in the event, supporting personnel, vessels registered
with the event organizer, and personnel or vessels authorized by the
Coast Guard Patrol Commander.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 100.1306 will be enforced on May 8,
2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice,
call or e-mail Ensign Ashley M. Wanzer, Sector Seattle Waterways
Management Division, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the Special
Local Regulation for the annual National Maritime Week Tugboat Races,
Seattle, WA in 33 CFR 100.1306 on May 8, 2010. These regulations can be
found in the April 17, 1996 issue of the Federal Register (70 FR
23938).
    A regulated area is established on that portion of Elliott Bay
along the Seattle waterfront in Puget Sound bounded by a line beginning
at: 47[deg]37'36'' N, 122[deg]22'42'' W; thence to 47[deg]37'24.5'' N,
122[deg]22'58.5'' W; thence to 47[deg]36'08'' N, 122[deg]20'53'' W;
thence to 47[deg]36'21'' N, 122[deg]20'31'' W; thence returning to the
origin. This regulated area resembles a rectangle measuring
approximately 3,900 yards along the shoreline between Pier 57 and Pier
89, and extending approximately 650 yards into Elliott Bay. Temporary
floating markers will be placed by the race sponsors to delineate the
regulated area. [Datum: NAD 1983]
    No person or vessel may enter or remain in the regulated area
except for participants in the event, supporting personnel, vessels
registered with the event organizer, and personnel or vessels
authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander.
    When deemed appropriate, the Coast Guard may establish a patrol
consisting of active and auxiliary Coast Guard vessels and personnel in
the regulated area described above. The patrol shall be under the
direction of a Coast Guard officer or petty officer designated by the
Captain of the Port as the Coast Guard Patrol Commander. The Patrol
Commander may forbid and control the movement of vessels in this
regulated area.
    A succession of sharp, short blasts from whistle or horn from
vessels patrolling the area under the direction of the Patrol Commander
shall serve as a signal to stop. Vessels signaled shall stop and comply
with the orders of the patrol vessel. Failure to do so may result in
expulsion from the area, citation for failure to comply, or both.
    The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local
law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.
    This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 100.1306 and 5
U.S.C. 552 (a). If the COTP determines that the regulated area need not
be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, he or she may
use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners to grant general permission to enter
the regulated area.

    Dated: April 13, 2010
Suzanne E. Englebert,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Puget Sound.
[FR Doc. 2010-10499 Filed 5-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 42 (Monday, March 6, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12504-12505]
[FR Doc No: 2017-04191]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2016-8835; Airspace Docket No. 16-ASW-14]

Amendment of Class E Airspace for the Paragould, AR

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action modifies Class E airspace extending upward from
700 feet above the surface at Kirk Field, Paragould, AR.
Decommissioning of non-directional radio beacons (NDB), cancellation of
NDB approaches, and implementation of area navigation (RNAV) procedures
have made this action necessary for the safety and management of
Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, June 22, 2017. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1,
Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of
FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of
FAA Order 7400.11A at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it modifies Class E airspace at Kirk Field, Paragould, AR.

History

    On August 25, 2016, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to modify Class E airspace
extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Kirk Field,
Paragould, AR, (81 FR 58414) Docket No. FAA-2016-8835. Interested
parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by
submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments
were received.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15,
2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15,
2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11A lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface within a 6.5-mile radius (increased from the 6.4-mile
radius) of Kirk Field, Paragould, AR, with an extension south of the
airport from the 6.5-mile radius 10.1 miles.
    Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of
NDBs, cancellation of NDB approaches, and implementation of RNAV
procedures at this airport for the safety and

management of the standard instrument approach procedures for IFR
operations.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected
to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and
effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet
or More Above the Surface of the Earth.
* * * * *

ASW AR E5 Paragould, AR [Amended]

Kirk Field, AR
(Lat. 36[deg]03'50'' N., long. 90[deg]30'33'' W.)
Jonesboro VOR
(Lat. 35[deg]52'30'' N., long. 90[deg]35'19'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of Kirk Field, and within 3 miles each side
of the 019[deg] radial from the Jonesboro VOR extending from the
6.5-mile radius to 10.1 miles south of the airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on February 22, 2017.
Walter Tweedy,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2017-04191 Filed 3-3-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 78 (Friday, April 22, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23773-23779]
[FR Doc No: 2016-09322]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77641; File No. SR-NYSEARCA-2016-19]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
of Proposed Rule Change Establishing Fees Relating to End Users and
Amending the Definition of ``Affiliate,'' as Well as Amending the Arca
Options Fee Schedule and the NYSE Arca Equities Schedule of Fees and
Charges for Exchange Services to Reflect the Changes

April 18, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on April 4, 2016, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE Arca'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to establish fees relating to end users and
amend the definition of ``affiliate,'' as well as to amend the co-
location section of the Arca Options Fee Schedule (the ``Options Fee
Schedule'') and, through its wholly owned subsidiary NYSE Arca
Equities, Inc. (``NYSE Arca Equities''), the NYSE Arca Equities
Schedule of Fees and Charges for Exchange Services (the ``Equities Fee
Schedule'' and, together with the Options Fee Schedule, the ``Fee
Schedules'') to reflect the changes. The Exchange proposes that the
changes be effective the first of the month following approval by the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').
    The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to establish fees relating to certain end
users and amend the definition of ``affiliate,'' as well as to amend
the co-location \4\ section of the Fee Schedules to reflect the
changes. The Exchange proposes that the changes be effective the first
of

the month following approval by the Securities and Exchange Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange initially filed rule changes relating to its
co-location services with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') in 2010. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
63275 (November 8, 2010), 75 FR 70048 (November 16, 2010) (SR-
NYSEArca-2010-100). The Exchange operates a data center in Mahwah,
New Jersey (the ``data center'') from which it provides co-location
services to Users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Information flows over existing network connections in two formats:
     Multicast format, which is a format in which information
is sent one-way from the Exchange to multiple recipients at once, like
a radio broadcast; and
     Unicast format, which is a format that allows one-to-one
communication, similar to a phone line, in which information is sent to
and from the Exchange.
Fees for Rebroadcasting Users Related to Their Multicast End Users
    As a general matter, market data is broadcast to Users \5\ in
multicast format. Users can rebroadcast data they receive in multicast
format to their customers \6\ if they choose. The Exchange proposes to
add to its co-location Fee Schedules definitions of a ``Rebroadcasting
User'' and a ``Multicast End User.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For purposes of the Exchange's co-location services, a
``User'' means any market participant that requests to receive co-
location services directly from the Exchange. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 76010 (September 29, 2015), 80 FR 60197
(October 5, 2015) (SR-NYSEArca-2015-82). As specified in the Fee
Schedules, a User that incurs co-location fees for a particular co-
location service pursuant thereto would not be subject to co-
location fees for the same co-location service charged by the
Exchange's affiliates New York Stock Exchange LLC and NYSE MKT LLC.
See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70173 (August 13, 2013), 78
FR 50459 (August 19, 2013) (SR-NYSEArca-2013-80).
    \6\ As used in the context of the proposed fees, the term
``customer'' refers to any person who has a contractual relationship
with a User or the customer of a User for the provision to that
customer of unicast or multicast services. A customer of a User may
include another User or a ``Hosted Customer,'' as that term is
defined in the Fee Schedules.

    A ``Rebroadcasting User'' would be a User that rebroadcasts to
its customers data received from the Exchange in multicast format,
unless such User normalizes the raw market data before sending it to
its customers.
    A ``Multicast End User'' would be a customer of a Rebroadcasting
User, or a customer of a Rebroadcasting User's Multicast End User
customer, to whom the Rebroadcasting User or its Multicast End User
sends data received from the Exchange in multicast format, other
than an Affiliate of the Rebroadcasting User. A Multicast End User
may be, but is not required to be, another User or a Hosted
Customer.

    The Exchange proposes that a User that normalizes raw market data
before sending it to its customers would not be a ``Rebroadcasting
User.'' Such normalized data is altered before rebroadcasting, and is
no longer in the form received from the Exchange. For example, a User
may opt to normalize the raw data distributed by the Exchange and its
affiliates by altering it to put it in viewable or algorithmic form,
such as by putting it though a feed handler. In addition, the Exchange
proposes that a User that rebroadcasts data received from third parties
would not be a ``Rebroadcasting User,'' as the data would not be
received from the Exchange.
    A Rebroadcasting User may have more than one connection to a single
Multicast End User. The multicast format permits a Multicast End User
to rebroadcast the data received. Each of such customers is also
considered a Multicast End User, irrespective of whether it receives
the data from a Rebroadcasting User or another Multicast End User.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Exchange is not aware of any customer of a Multicast End
User that rebroadcasts data, but if such a relationship did exist,
the customer would also be considered a Multicast End User.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to charge Rebroadcasting Users fees relating
to each Multicast End User as follows:
     If the Rebroadcasting User has one or two connections,
either directly or through another Multicast End User, to a Multicast
End User, the Rebroadcasting User would be subject to a $1,700 monthly
charge.
     If the Rebroadcasting User has more than two connections
to a Multicast End User, either directly or through another Multicast
End User, the Rebroadcasting User would be subject to a $1,700 monthly
charge for the first two connections (in the aggregate) and $850 for
each additional connection.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For example, if a Rebroadcasting User has three connections
to one Multicast End User, the Rebroadcasting User would be charged
$2,550 per month with respect to such Multicast End User: $1,700 per
month for the first two connections plus $850 per month for the
third connection. If a Rebroadcasting User has one connection to a
Multicast End User that itself has three customers that are also
Multicast End Users, each with one or two connections, the Exchange
would charge the Rebroadcasting User $6,800 per month, that is,
$1,700 per month for each Multicast End User.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fees for Transmittal Users Related to Their Unicast End Users
    Messages, such as those to send an order or related to clearing a
trade, are transmitted in unicast format. A User may enable one or more
of its customers to transmit messages in unicast format to and from the
Exchange. For example, a User that is a service bureau or extranet may
use such connections to facilitate order routing and clearing by its
customers. The Exchange proposes to add to its co-location Fee
Schedules definitions of a ``Transmittal User'' and a ``Unicast End
User.''

    A ``Transmittal User'' would be a User that enables its
customers, or the customers of its customers, to transmit messages
to and from the Exchange using the unicast format.
    A ``Unicast End User'' would be a customer of a Transmittal
User, or a customer of a Transmittal User's Unicast End User
customer, for whom the Transmittal User or its Unicast End User
customer enables the transmission of messages to and from the
Exchange in unicast format, other than a customer that (a) is an
Affiliate of the Transmittal User or (b) sends all unicast
transmissions through a floor participant, such as a floor broker. A
Unicast End User may be, but is not required to be, a User or a
Hosted Customer.

    A Transmittal User may establish more than one connection for a
single Unicast End User. The unicast format permits a Unicast End User
to enable one or more of its customers to transmit messages to and from
the Unicast End User. Each of such customers is also considered a
Unicast End User.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Exchange is not aware of any customer of a Unicast End
User that enables its customers to transmit messages, but if such a
relationship did exist, the customer would also be considered a
Unicast End User.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to charge Transmittal Users fees relating to
each Unicast End User as follows:
     If the Transmittal User has one or two connections to the
Unicast End User, either directly or through another Unicast End User,
the Transmittal User would be subject to a $1,500 monthly charge.
     If the Transmittal User has more than two connections to
the Unicast End User, either directly or through another Unicast End
User, the Transmittal User would be subject to a $1,500 monthly charge
for the first two connections (in the aggregate) and $750 for each
additional connection.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ For example, if a Transmittal User has three connections to
one Unicast End User, the Transmittal User would be charged $2,250
per month with respect to such Unicast End User: $1,500 per month
plus $750 per month. If a Transmittal User has one connection to a
Unicast End User that itself has three customers that are also
Unicast End Users, each with one or two connections, the Exchange
would charge the Transmittal User $6,000 per month, that is, $1,500
per month for each Unicast End User.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If a Transmittal User's customer sends all unicast transmissions
through a floor participant, such as a floor broker, that customer
would not be considered a Unicast End User even if such customer is
enabled to use unicast communications. Accordingly, the Transmittal
User would not be charged with respect to its connection to such
customer.
    A User may be both a Rebroadcasting User and a Transmittal User.
Definition of Affiliate
    The proposed fees would not apply to a Multicast End User that is
an ``Affiliate'' of a Rebroadcasting User or

a Unicast End User that is an ``Affiliate'' of a Transmittal User.
    Presently, for purposes of co-location fees the ``Affiliate'' of a
User is defined as ``any other User or Hosted Customer that is under
50% or greater common ownership or control of the first User.'' \11\
The Exchange proposes to revise the definition of ``Affiliate'' for
clarity and to include Affiliates of Multicast and Unicast End Users.
The proposed definition would be as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The Exchange added a definition of ``Affiliate'' for co-
location fees in connection with its partial cabinet solution
bundles. See Exchange Act Release No. 76616 (Dec. 10, 2015), 80 FR
78282 (December 16, 2015) (SR-NYSEArca-2015-102).

    An ``Affiliate'' of a User is any other User or Hosted Customer
that is under common control with, controls, or is controlled by,
the first User, provided that: (1) An ``Affiliate'' of a
Rebroadcasting User is any Multicast End User that is under common
control with, controls, or is controlled by the Rebroadcasting User;
and (2) an ``Affiliate'' of a Transmittal User is any Unicast End
User that is under common control with, controls, or is controlled
by the Transmittal User. For purposes of this definition,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``control'' means ownership or control of 50% or greater.

    The Exchange proposes to amend the current definition of Affiliate
to clarify that the control relationship does not exist only when a
User or Hosted Customer is under the common ownership or control of the
first User. Instead, an Affiliate relationship exists whenever the two
entities are under common control and irrespective of which entity
controls the other. In addition, the Exchange proposes to move the
description of what ``control'' means to the end of the definition, to
allow for addition of the definitions of Affiliate of Rebroadcasting
Users and Transmittal Users.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The proposed definition of Affiliate does not encompass two
Multicast End Users or Unicast End Users. Accordingly, if a
Rebroadcasting User or Transmittal User had two Multicast End Users
or Unicast End Users, respectively, that were under common control
or one controlled the other, they would be treated as two end users
for purposes of the proposed fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By using the same concept of ``control'' for the definitions of
Affiliate of Rebroadcasting Users and Transmittal Users as for the
general definition, the Exchange believes that the expanded definition
would be consistent in its application across the co-location related
fees.
Support for Rebroadcasting Users and Transmittal Users
    The Exchange incurs expenses and expends resources in connection
with the support of Rebroadcasting Users and Transmittal Users. Some
such costs are indirect, including those associated with overhead and
technology infrastructure, administrative, maintenance and operational
costs. Since the inception of co-location, there have been numerous
network infrastructure improvements performed and administrative
controls established. Additionally, the Exchange has automated
retransmission facilities for most of its Users that receive multicast
transmissions. These facilities benefit Rebroadcasting Users by
reducing their operational costs associated with retransmissions to
Multicast End Users that are also Users. The network infrastructure has
been expanded to keep pace with the increased number of services
available to Users, including Rebroadcasting and Transmittal Users,
which, in turn, has increased the administrative and operational costs
associated with delivery by Rebroadcasting Users and Transmittal Users
to their Multicast End Users and Unicast End Users, respectively. The
higher fees proposed in connection with the multicast format reflect
the Exchange's experience that there are higher maintenance costs
associated with supporting and rebroadcasting the multicast format,
largely due to bandwidth requirements.
    Based on its experience, the Exchange generally provides more
direct support to Rebroadcasting Users and Transmittal Users than other
Users, typically in the form of network support for the services that
Rebroadcasting Users and Transmittal Users provide their Multicast End
Users and Unicast End Users, respectively.\13\ Typically when an issue
arises, the Exchange and the applicable Rebroadcasting User or
Transmittal User would conduct a review to determine the cause of an
issue, with the participation of the relevant Multicast or Unicast End
User. Based on its experience, the Exchange finds that when the User is
a Rebroadcasting User or Transmittal User, pinpointing the issue and
providing the needed network support becomes more complicated because
each entity involved has its own infrastructure and administration.\14\
As a result, as a general matter the Exchange has a greater
administrative burden and incurs greater operational costs to support
Rebroadcasting Users and Transmittal Users than other Users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ For example, if a Multicast End User had an issue such as a
loss of connection to the multicast service or dropping packets of
data (i.e., portions of the data are dropped), the Exchange would
work with the Rebroadcasting User to determine the issue and, if it
was related to Exchange services, remedy it.
    \14\ The Exchange notes that in its experience not all Users
have detailed monitoring for their networks, and some Rebroadcasting
Users and Transmittal Users do not troubleshoot within their own
networks to see where the cause lies before asking the Exchange for
support.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By contrast, in its experience the Exchange has found that entities
that are Affiliates typically act as one entity, with one
infrastructure, one administration, and one network support group.
Accordingly, when the Exchange provides network support to a User
rebroadcasting or transmitting multicast or unicast data to Affiliate
end users, the Exchange is effectively supporting one entity,
irrespective of how many Affiliate end users are involved. As a result,
its administrative burden and operational costs are reduced in
comparison to when it supports a Rebroadcasting User or Transmittal
User rebroadcasting or transmitting to a Multicast End User or Unicast
End User, respectively.\15\ In the Exchange's experience, this is true
irrespective of whether the Affiliate end user is itself a User or is
located outside of co-location. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to
exclude Affiliates, including those Affiliates that are not Users, from
the definitions of Multicast End Users and Unicast End Users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ By comparison, as noted above, when the Exchange provides
support to a Rebroadcasting User or Transmittal User regarding
issues related to its Multicast or Unicast End Users, the Exchange
works with as many separate entities as there are parties involved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange does not provide network support for end users that
receive normalized data. Because the normalized data is altered, the
User that normalizes and then rebroadcasts normalized data acts as the
source of the feed. As a result the User does not need the Exchange's
assistance if an issue arises with its normalized feed. Accordingly,
the Exchange proposes to exclude a User that normalizes data from the
definition of Rebroadcasting User.
    Rebroadcasting Users and Transmittal Users need network support,
and the Exchange provides it, irrespective of whether their Multicast
or Unicast End Users are Users. For this reason, the Exchange provides
Rebroadcasting Users and Transmittal Users support related to their
Multicast and Unicast End Users both inside and outside of co-location.
Accordingly, the Exchange proposes not to limit the definitions of
Multicast End Users and Unicast End Users to end users that are also
Users.
Rebroadcasting User and Transmittal User Reporting
    In order to assess the proposed fees accurately, the Exchange
proposes that Rebroadcasting Users and Transmittal Users be required to
report the following

to the Exchange on a monthly basis: (a) The number of their Multicast
End Users and Unicast End Users, and (b) the number of connections to
each such Multicast End User and Unicast End User. A User that excludes
an Affiliate from its list of Multicast End Users or Unicast End Users
consistent with the proposed definitions may be required to certify to
the Exchange the Affiliate status of such end user.\16\ The Exchange
proposes to revise the Fee Schedules accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The Exchange may review available information regarding the
Affiliate status of an end user and reserves the right to request
additional information to verify the Affiliate status of such
entity. The Exchange would approve a request to exclude an Affiliate
unless it determines that the certification is not accurate. The
Exchange believes that this procedure is consistent with the
certification procedures relating to its Partial Cabinet Solution
bundles. See Exchange Act Release No. 76616, supra note 11, at 7402.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Users that are not Rebroadcasting Users or Transmittal Users may be
asked to certify as much to the Exchange.
    Users may independently set fees that they charge Multicast End
Users and Unicast End Users. The Exchange would not be a party to the
contractual relationship between Rebroadcasting Users and Transmittal
Users and their customers and would not receive a share of any fees
charged by Rebroadcasting Users and Transmittal Users for their
services.
General
    As is the case with all Exchange co-location arrangements, (i)
neither a User nor any of the User's customers would be permitted to
submit orders directly to the Exchange unless such User or customer is
a Member, a Sponsored Participant or an agent thereof (e.g., a service
bureau providing order entry services); (ii) use of the co-location
services proposed herein would be completely voluntary and available to
all Users on a non-discriminatory basis; \17\ and (iii) a User would
only incur one charge for the particular co-location service described
herein, regardless of whether the User connects only to the Exchange or
to the Exchange and one or both of its affiliates.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ As is currently the case, Users that receive co-location
services from the Exchange will not receive any means of access to
the Exchange's trading and execution systems that is separate from,
or superior to, that of others with access to the Exchange's trading
and execution systems. In this regard, all orders sent to the
Exchange enter the Exchange's trading and execution systems through
the same order gateway, regardless of whether the sender is co-
located in the data center or not. In addition, co-located Users do
not receive any market data or data service product that is not
available to users that have access to the Exchange's trading and
execution systems, although Users that receive co-location services
normally would expect reduced latencies in sending orders to, and
receiving market data from, the Exchange.
    \18\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70173, supra note 5
at 50459. The Exchange's affiliates have also submitted
substantially the same proposed rule change. See SR-NYSE-2015-11 and
SR-NYSEMKT-2015-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Technical Change
    Finally, the Exchange proposes to delete the obsolete text in the
Fee Schedules related to the Hosting Fee of $500 per Hosted Customer
that was in effect until December 31, 2015. In addition, the Exchange
proposes to delete the ``Effective January 1, 2016'' text that precedes
the current description of the $1,000 monthly charge per cabinet per
Hosted Customer for each cabinet in which such Hosted Customer is
hosted because it is no longer necessary as these fees are current
fees.
    The proposed change is not otherwise intended to address any other
issues relating to co-location services and/or related fees, and the
Exchange is not aware of any problems that Users would have in
complying with the proposed change.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\19\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(5) of the Act,\20\ in particular, because
it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to, and
perfect the mechanisms of, a free and open market and a national market
system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest
and because it is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\21\ in particular, because
it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among its members, issuers and other persons using its
facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between customers,
issuers, brokers or dealers. Overall, the Exchange believes that the
proposed change is consistent with the Act because the Exchange offers
the co-location services described herein as a convenience to Users,
but in so doing incurs certain costs, including costs related to the
Data Center facility, hardware and equipment and costs related to
personnel required for installation and ongoing monitoring, support and
maintenance of such services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes that the proposal is not designed to permit
unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
Co-location services would continue to be offered by the Exchange in a
manner that would not unfairly discriminate between or among market
participants that are otherwise capable of satisfying any applicable
co-location fees, requirements, terms and conditions established from
time to time by the Exchange. The proposed end user-related
definitions, fees and reporting requirements would be applied uniformly
to all Users providing multicast and unicast connections and would not
unfairly discriminate between similarly situated Users of co-location
services.
    In addition, the proposed end user fees would fairly and equitably
allocate the costs associated with maintaining the Data Center
facility, hardware and equipment and related to personnel required for
installation and ongoing monitoring, support and maintenance of such
service among all Users.
    In the absence of the proposed end user fees, no charges would be
assessed related to the benefit that Multicast End Users and Unicast
End Users receive from these services through the Rebroadcasting or
Transmittal User from whom they receive data, and the Rebroadcasting or
Transmittal Users would thus receive disproportionate benefits.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed fees are reasonable in that
they are designed to defray applicable expenses incurred and resources
expended by the Exchange in support of Rebroadcasting Users and
Transmittal Users, including those associated with overhead and
technology infrastructure, administrative, maintenance and operational
costs, such as the costs of maintaining multiple connections with
multiple providers. The Exchange incurs expenses and expends resources
in connection with the support of Rebroadcasting Users and Transmittal
Users. Some such costs are indirect, including those associated with
overhead and technology infrastructure, administrative, maintenance and
operational costs. Since the inception of co-location, there have been
numerous network infrastructure improvements

performed and administrative controls established.
    Additionally, the Exchange has automated retransmission facilities
for most of its Users that receive multicast transmissions. These
facilities benefit Rebroadcasting Users by reducing their operational
costs associated with retransmissions to Multicast End Users that are
also Users. The network infrastructure has been expanded to keep pace
with the increased number of services available to Users, including
Rebroadcasting and Transmittal Users, which, in turn, has increased the
administrative and operational costs associated with delivery by
Rebroadcasting Users and Transmittal Users to their Multicast End Users
and Unicast End Users, respectively. The Exchange believes that the
proposed higher fees proposed in connection with the multicast format
are reasonable because they reflect the Exchange's experience that
there are higher maintenance costs associated with supporting and
rebroadcasting the multicast format, largely due to bandwidth
requirements.
    In addition, based on its experience, the Exchange believes that
the proposed fees are reasonable in that, as a general matter, the
Exchange has a greater administrative burden and incurs greater
operational costs to support Rebroadcasting Users and Transmittal Users
than other Users. The Exchange generally provides more direct support
to Rebroadcasting Users and Transmittal Users than other Users,
typically in the form of network support for the services that
Rebroadcasting Users and Transmittal Users provide their Multicast End
Users and Unicast End Users, respectively. Typically when an issue
arises, the Exchange and the applicable Rebroadcasting User or
Transmittal User would conduct a review to determine the cause of an
issue, with the participation of the relevant Multicast or Unicast End
User. Based on its experience, the Exchange finds that when the User is
a Rebroadcasting User or Transmittal User, pinpointing the issue and
providing the needed network support becomes more complicated because
each entity involved has its own infrastructure and administration.
    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to charge
Rebroadcasting Users and Transmittal Users the proposed fees
irrespective of whether their Multicast or Unicast End User is a User,
because the Exchange provides Rebroadcasting Users and Transmittal
Users support related to their Multicast and Unicast End Users that are
outside of co-location as well as those that are Users. If the proposed
fees were limited to Rebroadcasting Users and Transmittal Users whose
Multicast or Unicast End Users were themselves Users, no charges would
be assess related to the benefit that end users outside of co-location
received from these services through the rebroadcasting or transmitting
User from whom they received data. As a result, the Rebroadcasting
Users and Transmittal Users whose Multicast or Unicast End Users were
themselves Users would support a disproportionate share of the
Exchange's administrative burden and operational costs relating to end
users, and the rebroadcasting or transmitting Users would receive
disproportionate benefits.
    In addition, the Exchange believes that it is reasonable to charge
the same amount for one or two connections because it would encourage
Users and their customers to establish two connections and thereby
create redundancy in the connections.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed amendments to the
definition of Affiliates regarding the control relationship are
reasonable because they would make the definition more accessible and
transparent and provide market participants with clarity as to what
entities are considered Affiliates, ensuring that Users exclude all
possible Affiliates from the proposed fees and the existing fees for
Partial Cabinet Solution bundles. The Exchange believes that setting
the common ownership or control threshold in the definition of
Affiliates of Multicast End Users and Unicast End Users at 50% is
reasonable because it is the same threshold as in the current
definition of Affiliates.
    Expanding the definition of Affiliates, adding the definitions of
Multicast End User, Rebroadcasting User, Unicast End User, and
Transmittal User, and adding the proposed note on the reporting
requirements to the Fee Schedules would make such definitions and
requirements accessible and transparent and provide market participants
with clarity as to the application of the proposed fees. The Exchange
believes that the proposal would remove impediments to, and perfect the
mechanisms of, a free and open market and a national market system and,
in general, protect investors and the public interest because by
including the definitions and reporting requirements in the Fee
Schedules, the proposed change would provide all Users with clarity as
to the availability and application of co-location services and fees.
Such end user-related definitions, fees and reporting requirements
would be applied uniformly to all Users providing multicast and unicast
connections and would not unfairly discriminate between similarly
situated Users of co-location services.
    The Exchange believes that excluding Affiliates from the
definitions of Multicast End Users and Unicast End Users is reasonable
because, in its experience, when the Exchange provides network support
to a User rebroadcasting or transmitting multicast or unicast data to
Affiliate end users, the Exchange's administrative burden and
operational costs are reduced in comparison to when it supports a
Rebroadcasting User or Transmittal User rebroadcasting or transmitting
multicast or unicast data to a Multicast End User or Unicast End User,
respectively. In its experience, entities that are Affiliates typically
act as one entity, with one infrastructure, one administration, and one
network support group. Accordingly, when the Exchange provides network
support to a User rebroadcasting or transmitting multicast or unicast
data to Affiliate end users, the Exchange is effectively supporting one
entity, irrespective of how many Affiliate end users are involved.
    The Exchange believes that having the definition of Affiliates
encompass non-Users is reasonable because in its experience entities
that are Affiliates typically act as one entity irrespective of whether
one or more of them are not Users. If the definition did not encompass
non-Users, a User would have to pay the proposed fee if it rebroadcast
or transmitted multicast or unicast data to an end user that was not a
User but otherwise met the definition of Affiliate. However, the
Exchange would incur the same costs irrespective of whether the end
user is itself a User or is located outside of co-location.
Accordingly, the Exchange believes that having the definition of
Affiliates encompass non-Users avoids disparate treatment of a
Rebroadcasting User or Transmittal User that has a non-User as its
Affiliate, as compared to one that has a User as its Affiliate.
    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable that, under the
proposed definition, two Multicast End Users or Unicast End Users would
not be considered Affiliates even if they otherwise met the
requirements of the definition. The Exchange has no direct contract
with a Rebroadcasting User's Multicast End Users for connectivity to
Exchange data, or with a Transmittal User's Unicast End Users for the
transmission of messages to and from the Exchange. As a result, the
Exchange would not be able to independently ascertain which Multicast
and

Transmittal Users met the definition of Affiliates, and would have no
standing to require such Multicast and Unicast End Users to report
their Affiliates. The Exchange believes it would create an unnecessary
administrative burden on Users to require Rebroadcasting Users and
Transmittal Users to determine which, if any, of their Multicast and
Unicast End Users were affiliated, and to report such to the Exchange.
    The Exchange believes that the proposal to exclude Affiliates from
the definitions of Multicast End User and Unicast End User is not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers or dealers because the proposed rule avoids disparate treatment
of Users that have divided their various business activities among
separate corporate entities, as compared to Users that operate those
business activities within a single corporate entity. In addition, the
inclusion of non-Users in the definition of Affiliates is not designed
to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers or
dealers because the proposed rule avoids disparate treatment of Users
that have Affiliates that are not Users, as compared to Users whose
Affiliates are all Users.
    The Exchange believes that the proposal to exclude from the
definition of Multicast End Users a User that normalizes raw data
before rebroadcasting it to its customers is reasonable and is not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers or dealers because a User that normalizes and then rebroadcasts
normalized data acts as the source of the feed, and so does not need
the Exchange's assistance if an issue arises with its normalized feed.
As a result, the Exchange does not incur the same costs in relation to
end users of normalized data as it does in relation to Multicast End
Users.
    The Exchange believes that the proposal to exclude from the
definition of Unicast End User those customers of a Transmittal User
(and customers of Users' customers) that send all orders to a Floor
broker for representation on the Exchange is reasonable because it
would encourage sending orders to Floor brokers for execution, thereby
encouraging additional displayed liquidity on the Exchange. This would
encourage the execution of transactions on a public registered
exchange, thereby promoting public price discovery--an objective fully
consistent with the Act.\22\ The Exchange believes the proposed changes
are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because they would
continue to encourage member organizations to send orders to the Floor
for execution, thereby contributing to robust levels of liquidity on
the Floor, which benefits all market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Exchange Act Release No. 73333 (October 9, 2014), 79 FR
62223 (October 16, 2014) (SR-NYSE-2014-32 and SR-NYSEMKT-2014-56)
(``The Commission also notes that . . . the ALO limit order is
designed to provide displayed liquidity to the market and thereby
contribute to public price discovery--an objective that is fully
consistent with the Act''); see also 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1)(c)(iii)
and (iv) (objectives for the national market system include assuring
the availability of information with respect to quotations in
securities and the practicability of brokers executing investors'
orders in the best market).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposal to have Users report the
number of their Multicast End Users and Unicast End Users and the
number of connections to each such Multicast End User and Unicast End
User is reasonable because it will ensure that the proposed fees are
assessed accurately and will provide market participants with clarity
as to how the fees will be assessed.
    For the reasons above, the proposed change would not unfairly
discriminate between or among market participants that are otherwise
capable of satisfying any applicable co-location fees, requirements,
terms and conditions established from time to time by the Exchange.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant
competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement
regarding the burden on competition.
    For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is
consistent with the Act.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\23\ the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change would not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act because any market participants that are otherwise
capable of satisfying any applicable co-location fees, requirements,
terms and conditions established from time to time by the Exchange
could have access to the co-location services provided in the Data
Center. This is also true because, in addition to the services being
completely voluntary, they are available to all Users on an equal basis
(i.e., the same range of products and services are available to all
Users). The proposed end user-related definitions, fees and reporting
requirements would be applied uniformly to all Users providing
multicast and unicast connections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed end user fees
would not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because they
would fairly and equitably allocate the costs associated with
maintaining the Data Center facility, hardware and equipment and
related to personnel required for installation and ongoing monitoring,
support and maintenance of such service among all Users, as well as
applicable expenses incurred and resources expended by the Exchange in
support of Rebroadcasting Users and Transmittal Users. In the absence
of the proposed end user fees, no charges would be assessed related to
the benefit that Multicast End Users and Unicast End Users receive from
these services through the Rebroadcasting or Transmittal User from whom
they receive data, and the Rebroadcasting or Transmittal Users would
thus receive disproportionate benefits.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed end user fees would not
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the Exchange has
tailored the proposed definition of Affiliate to include User and non-
User Affiliates. If the proposed fees were limited to Rebroadcasting
Users and Transmittal Users whose Multicast or Unicast End Users were
themselves Users, no charges would be assessed relating to the benefit
that end users outside of co-location received from these services
through the rebroadcasting or transmitting User from whom they received
data. As a result, the Rebroadcasting Users and Transmittal Users whose
Multicast or Unicast End Users were themselves Users would support a
disproportionate share of the Exchange's administrative burden and
operational costs relating to end users, and the rebroadcasting or
transmitting Users would receive disproportionate benefits.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed end user fees would not
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the Exchange has
excluded Affiliates from the proposed definitions of Multicast End
Users and Unicast End Users. As a result, the proposed end user fees
exclude fees related to end users that, in the Exchange's experience,
typically act as one entity, with one infrastructure and one
administration.
    The Exchange believes that the proposal to exclude from the
definition

of Unicast End User those customers of a Transmittal User (and
customers of Users' customers) that send all orders to a Floor broker
for representation on the Exchange is reasonable because it would
encourage providing liquidity on the Exchange, thereby contributing to
the Exchange's competitiveness with other markets. In addition, the
Exchange believes that expanding the definition of Affiliates and
adding the definitions of Multicast End User, Rebroadcasting User,
Unicast End User, and Transmittal User to the Fee Schedules would make
such definitions accessible and transparent and provide market
participants with clarity as to the availability and application of the
proposed fees.
    Finally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues if, for example, they deem fee levels at a particular
venue to be excessive or if they determine that another venue's
products and services are more competitive than on the Exchange. In
such an environment, the Exchange must continually review, and consider
adjusting, the services it offers as well as any corresponding fees and
credits to remain competitive with other exchanges. For the reasons
described above, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change
reflects this competitive environment.

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

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

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission shall: (a) By order approve
or disapprove such proposed rule change, or (b) institute proceedings
to determine whether the proposed rule change should be 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 No. SR-NYSEARCA-2016-19 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-NYSEARCA-2016-19. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such 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 No. SR-NYSEARCA-2016-19, and should be
submitted on or before May 13, 2016.

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

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

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-09322 Filed 4-21-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 139 (Monday, July 21, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 42313]
[FR Doc No: 2014-17045]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12649-000]

East Bay Municipal Utility District; Notice of Effectiveness of
Surrender

    On May 24, 2006, the Commission issued an Order Granting Exemption
from Licensing (Conduit) \1\ to the East Bay Municipal Utility District
(District) for the Briones Energy Recovery Project, FERC No. 12649. The
unconstructed project would have been located in the existing pipeline
which supplies the Orinda Water Treatment Plant in Contra Costa County,
California.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 115 FERC ] 62,212.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 30, 2014, the District filed an application with the
Commission to surrender the exemption. The District has decided not to
move forward with construction of the project, citing insufficient
economic returns and cheaper alternatives in reducing greenhouse gas
emissions.
    Accordingly, the Commission accepts the District's surrender of its
exemption from licensing, effective 30 days from the date of this
notice, at the close of business on Monday, August 11, 2014. No
license, exemption, or preliminary permit applications for the project
site may be filed until Tuesday, August 12, 2014.

    Dated: July 10, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-17045 Filed 7-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P