[Federal Register: July 9, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 132)]
[Notices]
[Page 39350-39352]
[DOCID:fr09jy08-107]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58060; File No. SR-Amex-2008-49]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Section 107 of the Company Guide

June 30, 2008.
    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 June 13, 2008, the American Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared substantially by Amex. Amex
filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule change
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\ which renders it effective upon filing with the
Commission. 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to make certain non-substantive housekeeping
changes to various subsections of Section 107 of the Amex Company Guide
(the ``Company Guide''). The text of the proposed rule change is
available at Amex, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and http://
www.amex.com.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, Amex 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. Amex 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
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to make certain non-
substantive changes to the rule text of Section 107 of the Company
Guide. The Exchange in this proposal seeks to reduce the duplications
in subsections of Sections 107D through 107I by consolidating
provisions that apply to all securities listed under Section 107 of the
Company Guide (the ``Section 107 Securities'').
    Over the past several years, the Exchange has adopted a variety of
``generic'' listing standards applicable to Index-Linked Securities,
Commodity-Linked Securities, Currency-Linked Securities, Fixed Income-
Linked Securities, Futures-Linked Securities

and Combination-Linked Securities. Sections 107D, 107E, 107F, 107G,
107H and 107I of the Company Guide detail the listing requirements for
Index-Linked Securities, Commodity-Linked Securities, Currency-Linked
Securities, Fixed Income-Linked Securities, Futures-Linked Securities
and Combination-Linked Securities, respectively. In each of these
Sections, the subparagraphs (a) through (f), and (i) through (k)
provide for substantively identical requirements. As a result, the
Exchange proposes to delete these subparagraphs and consolidate these
``general requirements'' into proposed new Commentaries .01 and .02 to
Section 107 of the Company Guide.
    Proposed paragraphs (a) through (f) of proposed Commentary .01
would consolidate substantively the same information contained in
subparagraphs (a) through (f) of Sections 107D through I. The criteria
set forth in proposed Commentary .01 to Section 107 of the Company
Guide would be applicable to Section 107 Securities as follows:
     Both the issue and the issuer of the security must meet
the ``General Criteria'' in Section 107A.
     The issue have a minimum term of one (1) year but not
greater than thirty (30) years.
     The issue must be non-convertible debt of the issuer.
     Payment at maturity may or may not provide for a multiple
of the direct or inverse performance of the underlying reference asset;
however, in no event will a loss or negative payment at maturity be
accelerated by a multiple that exceeds twice the performance of the
underlying reference asset.
     The issuer will be expected to have a minimum tangible net
worth in excess of $250,000,000, and to otherwise substantially exceed
the earnings requirements set forth in Section 101(a) of the Company
Guide. In the alternative, the issuer will be expected: (i) To have a
minimum tangible net worth of $150,000,000 and to otherwise
substantially exceed the earnings requirement set forth in Section
101(a) of the Company Guide, and (ii) not to have issued securities
where the original issue price of all the issuer's other index-linked
note offerings (combined with index-linked note offerings of the
issuer's affiliates) listed on a national securities exchange exceeds
25% of the issuer's net worth.
     The issuer must be in compliance with Rule 10A-3 under the
Act.
    Proposed Commentary .02 relating to trading halts, firewalls,
surveillance procedures and proposed paragraphs (b) through (d) of
proposed Commentary .02 would consolidate paragraphs (i) through (k) of
Sections 107D through I. Proposed paragraph (a) of Commentary .02 is
substantively identical to the trading halt provisions found in Section
107D(h)(4) and subparagraphs (h)(3) of Sections 107E through I of the
Company Guide. The proposed trading halt provision would apply to all
the Section 107 Securities and would allow the Exchange to halt trading
if the value of the underlying reference asset or indicative value is
not being disseminated.\5\ The criteria set forth in proposed
Commentary .02 to Section 107 of the Company Guide would be applicable
to Section 107 Securities as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Currently, Section 107D permits the Exchange to halt trading
if the value of the underlying index is not being disseminated, and
does not permit a trading halt if the indicative value is not being
disseminated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Trading Halts. If the value of the underlying reference
asset or indicative value is not being disseminated as required, the
Exchange may halt trading during the day on which such interruption
first occurs. If such interruption persists past the trading day in
which it occurred, the Exchange will halt trading no later than the
beginning of the trading day following the interruption.
     Firewalls. If the value of a security is based in whole or
in part on an index or portfolio maintained by a broker-dealer, the
broker-dealer shall erect a ``firewall'' around the personnel
responsible for the maintenance of such index or portfolio who have
access to information concerning changes and adjustments to the index
or portfolio, and the index or portfolio shall be calculated by a third
party who is not a broker-dealer. Any advisory committee, supervisory
board or similar entity that advises an index license provider or that
makes decisions regarding the index or portfolio composition,
methodology and related matters must implement and maintain, or be
subject to, procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of
material, non-public information regarding the applicable index or
portfolio.
     Surveillance Procedures. The Exchange will implement
written surveillance procedures for the listing and trading of
securities, including adequate comprehensive surveillance sharing
agreements, as applicable.
     Securities listed pursuant to Sections 107D through I of
the Company Guide will be treated as equity instruments subject to the
Exchange's equity trading rules, except that (i) such securities listed
and traded as bond or debt securities will be subject to the rules
applicable to bond or debt securities and (ii) securities redeemable at
the option of the holders thereof on at least a weekly basis will be
subject to the trading rules applicable to exchange-traded funds.
    The Exchange represents that as set forth above, the substantive
requirements in proposed Commentaries .01 and .02 to Section 107 of the
Company Guide are substantively identical to the corresponding
paragraphs of Sections 107D through I of the Company Guide.
    The listing requirements for each of the Section 107 Securities
would now refer to Commentary .01 rather than individually setting
forth the ``General Criteria'' for each issue and issuer. Commentary
.02 specifically provides that it applies to the listing and trading of
the Section 107 Securities with respect to trading halts, firewalls,
surveillance procedures and the characterization of the Section 107
Securities.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations under the Act applicable to a
national securities exchange and, in particular, the requirements of
Section 6(b) of the Act.\6\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the
proposed rule change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) Act \7\
requirements that the rules of an exchange be designed to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest. The Exchange believes that the proposal will provide better
clarity and streamline its Section 107 listing requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

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

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, if consistent with
the protection of investors and public interest, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Commission Rule 19b-4(f)(6) may
not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing.
However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \10\ permits the Commission to designate
a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. The Exchange has requested that the
Commission waive the 30-day operative delay set forth in Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) under the Act.\11\ The Commission believes that waiving
the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest because the proposed rule change
would allow the proposed non-substantive revisions to streamline and
clarify Section 107 of the Company Guide to be effective immediately.
For this reason, the Commission designates the proposal to be operative
upon filing with the Commission.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires that a self-regulatory organization submit to the
Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule
change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule
change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing of
the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. The Commission notes that Amex has satisfied this
requirement.
    \11\ CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \12\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay of
this proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's
impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml ); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Amex-2008-49 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-Amex-2008-49. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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 inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of Amex. 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-Amex-2008-49 and should be
submitted on or before July 30, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-15484 Filed 7-8-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 12 (Thursday, January 17, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3923-3924]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00975]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the staff of
the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold a decimalization
roundtable discussion on Tuesday, February 5, 2013, in the Auditorium,
Room L-002. The meeting will begin at 10:00 a.m. and will be open to
the public. Seating will be on a first-come, first served basis. Doors
will be open at 9:30 a.m. Visitors will be subject to security checks.
The roundtable will be webcast on the Commission's Web site at
www.sec.gov and will be archived for later viewing.
    On December 28, 2012, the Commission published notice of the
roundtable discussion (Release No. 34-68510), indicating that the event
is open to the public and inviting the public to submit written
comments to the Commission staff. This Sunshine Act notice is being
issued because a majority of the Commission may attend the roundtable
discussion.
    The agenda for the roundtable includes opening remarks followed by
three panel discussions. The participants in the first panel will
address the impact of tick sizes on small and middle capitalization
companies, the economic consequences (including the costs and benefits)
of increasing or decreasing minimum tick sizes, and whether other
policy alternatives might better address the concerns animating Section
106(b) of the JOBS Act. The participants in the second panel will
address the impact of tick sizes on the securities market in general,
including what benefits may have been achieved, and what, if any,
negative effects have resulted. The participants in the third panel
will address potential methods for analysis of the issues, including
whether and how to conduct a pilot for alternative minimum tick sizes.

    For further information, please contact the Office of the Secretary
at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: January 15, 2013.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-00975 Filed 1-15-13; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 140 (Monday, July 22, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35110-35111]
[FR Doc No: 2019-15466]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14799-001]

Lock 13 Hydro Partners, LLC; Notice of Application Tendered for
Filing With the Commission and Soliciting Additional Study Requests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Original Major License.
    b. Project No.: P-14799-001.
    c. Date filed: July 1, 2019.
    d. Applicant: Lock 13 Hydro Partners, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Evelyn Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On the Kentucky River, in Lee and Estill Counties,
Kentucky. The project would be located at the Commonwealth of
Kentucky's existing Lock and Dam No. 13. No federal land would be
occupied by the project works or located within the project boundary.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: David Brown Kinloch, Lock 13 Hydro Partners,
LLC, 414 S Wenzel Street, Louisville, KY 40204;<PHONE_NUMBER>; email_
[email protected]
    i. FERC Contact: Sarah Salazar,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Cooperating agencies: Federal, state, local, and tribal agencies
with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to
environmental issues that wish to cooperate in the preparation of the
environmental document should follow the instructions for filing such
requests described in item l below. Cooperating agencies should note
the Commission's policy that agencies that cooperate in the preparation
of the environmental document cannot also intervene. See, 94 FERC
61,076 (2001).
    k. Pursuant to section 4.32(b)(7) of 18 CFR of the Commission's
regulations, if any resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person believes
that an additional scientific study should be conducted in order to
form an adequate factual basis for a complete analysis of the
application on its merit, the resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person
must file

a request for a study with the Commission not later than 60 days from
the date of filing of the application, and serve a copy of the request
on the applicant.
    l. Deadline for filing additional study requests and requests for
cooperating agency status: August 30, 2019.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
additional study requests and requests for cooperating agency status
using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202)
502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy
to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street
NE, Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-14799-001.
    m. The application is not ready for environmental analysis at this
time.
    n. The proposed Evelyn Project would be operated in a run-of-river
mode and would consist of: (1) An existing estimated 223-acre
impoundment at a pool elevation of 617.38 feet mean sea level (North
American Vertical Datum of 1988); (2) an existing concrete dam with a
246-foot-long, 34-foot-wide, and 38.2-foot-high spillway and a 148-
foot-long, 38.2-foot-high, and 52-foot-wide lock chamber; (3) a new 73-
foot-long by 52-foot-wide reinforced concrete powerhouse that would be
submerged in the existing lock chamber, with five Flygt axial-flow
propeller turbine generator units each rated at 560-kilowatts (kW), for
a total installed capacity of 2.8 MW; (4) a new 110-foot-long buried
cable transmitting power from the submerged powerhouse to a new two
story, 48-foot-long by 30-foot-wide Control Building onshore which
would house the project controls; (5) a new 600-foot-long, 12.47-
kilovolt overhead transmission line that would connect to an existing
Jackson Energy Cooperative line of the same voltage; and (6)
appurtenant facilities. The estimated average annual generation would
be 11,274 megawatt-hours.
    o. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link.
Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket
number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item h above.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    p. Procedural schedule: The application will be processed according
to the following preliminary Hydro Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the
schedule will be made as appropriate.

Issue Notice of Acceptance--December 2019
Issue notice of ready for environmental analysis--December 2019
Commission issues EA--August 2020
Comments on EA--September 2020

    Dated: July 15, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-15466 Filed 7-19-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: November 29, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 228)]
[Notices]
[Page 71482]
[DOCID:fr29no05-45]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

November 9, 2005.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings.
    Docket Numbers: ER05-554-003.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: PacifiCorp reports that on 10/14/05 it paid $26,929 to
Warm Springs Power Enterprises in compliance with FERC's 8/25/05 Order.
    Filed Date: 11/03/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051108-0212.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern time on Friday, November 25 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-150-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection LLC submits its Third Revised Rate
Schedule No. 24 and Sixth Revised Volume No. 1.
    Filed Date: 11/02/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051108-0285.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern time on Wednesday, November 23, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-151-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, LLC submits revisions to the PJM
FERC Electric Tariff, Third Revised Rate Schedule No. 24 & Sixth
Revised Volume No. 1.
    Filed Date: 11/02/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051108-0255.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern time on Wednesday, November 23, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-152-000.
    Applicants: Wisconsin Public Service Corporation.
    Description: Wisconsin Public Service Corp submits a revised
Market-Base Rate Tariff designated as FERC Electric Tariff, Fourth
Revised Volume No. 10.
    Filed Date: 11/03/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051108-0209.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern time on Friday, November 25, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-153-000.
    Applicants: American Electric Power Service Corporation.
    Description: American Electric Power Service Corp on behalf AEP
Texas Central Company submits a restated and amended interconnection
agreement dated 11/29/99.
    Filed Date: 11/03/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051108-0210.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern time on Friday, November 25, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-154-000; ER05-1307-000.
    Applicants: Tampa Electric Company;
    Description: Tampa Electric Co submits a Compliance Filing of
Second Revised Sheet No. 121 to FERC Electric Tariff, Second Revised
Volume No. 4.
    Filed Date: 11/03/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051108-0211.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern time on Friday, November 25, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-155-000.
    Applicants: Walton Electric Membership Corporation.
    Description: Walton Electric Membership Corp informs FERC it is no
longer a public utility subject to jurisdiction pursuant to section
201(f) of the Federal Power Act and no longer is required to file
reports effective 8/8/05.
    Filed Date: 11/02/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051108-0207.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern time on Wednesday, November 23, 2005.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings 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) on or before 5 p.m. eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. 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. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    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
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also 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 dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E5-6631 Filed 11-28-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Environmentally Preferable Purchasing  Fact Sheet on use of Third Parties and Non Government.. Page 1 of 3 http:// www. epa. gov/ opptintr/ epp/ guidance/ ngefact. htm 6/ 20/ 2003 Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Recent Additions | Contact Us | Print Version Search:

EPA Home > Prevention, Pesticides & Toxic Substances > Pollution Prevention > Environmentally Preferable Purchasing > EPA Guidance > Standards Development > Fact Sheet on use of Third Parties and Non Government Entities to promote EPP About EPP EPP Guidance Federal Efforts EPP Tool Suite EPP Documents EPP Links Fact Sheet on use of Third Parties and Non Government Entities to promote EPP Background and Definitions l 1993, President Clinton issued Executive Order 12873 on Federal Acquisition, Recycling, and Waste Prevention which requires EPA " to issue guidance that recommends principles that Executive Agencies should use in making determinations for the preference and purchase of " environmentally preferable products." The Environmentally Preferable Purchasing ( EPP) program was established to issue such guidance and serve as a point of contact for government agencies.

l 1998, EPA and the Office of the Federal Environmental Executive issued policy on how federal agencies can use Non Governmental Entities to help achieve the Administration's mandate of purchasing environmentally preferable goods and services.

l Non Governmental Entities ( NGE's)/" Third Parties" are defined as " including but not limited to, standard setting organizations, third party certification programs, environmental labeling or environmental " report card" programs, and other environmental consulting organizations.

The Pilot Project Approach The purpose of the pilot project approach is to demonstrate how Executive Agencies can use NGEs to support federal environmentally preferable purchasing efforts. EPA believes there are several advantages to this approach. First, it allows us to increase the variety of product categories which are studied. Second, through the pilot project approach we may determine The Five Guiding Principles EPA's Final Guidance Standards Development Top 20 Priorities " Voluntary consensus standards" are standards developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, both domestic and international. These standards include provisions requiring that owners of relevant intellectual property have agreed to make that intellectual property available on a non discriminatory, royaltyfree or reasonable royalty basis to all interested parties.

OMB CIRCULAR NO. A 119 For more details on the NGE Pilot Project Approach please refer to the Third Party Policy Letter available at: www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr ( see 6/ 22/ 98)

Fax On Demand: ( 202) 401 RECEIVED OPPT NCIC 2003 JUN20 7: 42AM OPPT 2003 0032 0005 Environmentally Preferable Purchasing  Fact Sheet on use of Third Parties and Non Government.. Page 2 of 3 http:// www. epa. gov/ opptintr/ epp/ guidance/ ngefact. htm 6/ 20/ 2003 where the use of outside expertise is appropriate and helpful. Third, the most effective and practical ways to achieve the goal of environmentally preferable purchasing will be identified. Finally, this approach may encourage increased competition among existing and new organizations/ programs that can support the procurement of environmentally preferable products.

Suggested Pilot Project Approaches Use existing information developed by NGEs to:

l Identify a range of environmental attributes which can contribute to EPA's determination of environmental preferability.

l Buy commercial items off the shelves using literature provided by NGEs, profiling product performance on environmental attributes, so that informed procurement decisions are made.

l Denote specific information about a product's environmental characteristics through the use of symbols from NGEs in Executive Agency catalogs/ schedules.

l NGEs can provide existing information about environmental attributes of various products to executive agencies which can then develop their own symbols to appear in agency catalogs/ schedules.

Use NGEs as " consultants" under Advisory and Assistance Contracts Use NGEs qualified to certify specific claims in order to verify environmental claims made by manufacturers or vendors.

EPA's Role in the Pilot Projects l Assist Executive Agencies in structuring a pilot project and provide support to assess the utility of NGEs.

l Seek out and identify NGEs with expertise in a given area ( e. g. through Federal Register or Commerce Business Daily announcements).

l Assemble a list of product categories for which eco labeling criteria and standards have been established.

l Assist in structuring an EPP pilot project that does not involve NGEs If you are interested in talking or meeting with EPA on this issue please contact: Julie Shannon ( 202) 260 2736 shannon. julie@ epa. gov Back to top Fax On Demand: ( 202) 401 0527  Item # 8001 The Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse ( PPIC):

( 202) 260 0178 ppic@ epamail. epa. gov Doc.# EPA 742 B98 003 Environmentally Preferable Purchasing  Fact Sheet on use of Third Parties and Non Government.. Page 3 of 3 http:// www. epa. gov/ opptintr/ epp/ guidance/ ngefact. htm 6/ 20/ 2003 Pollution Prevention Home | OPPT Home EPA Home | Privacy and Security Notice | Contact Us Last updated on Friday, May 9th, 2003 URL: http:// www. epa. gov/ opptintr/ epp/ guidance/ ngefact. htm


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 192 (Monday, October 5, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60197-60200]
[FR Doc No: 2015-25176]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76010; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2015-82]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Adding Definitions
Applicable to Co-Location Services to the NYSE Arca Options Fee
Schedule and, the NYSE Arca Equities Schedule of Fees and Charges for
Exchange Services and Modifying the Fee for Users That Host Their
Customers at the Exchange's Data Center

September 29, 2015.
    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 September 18, 2015, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE Arca'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to add definitions applicable to co-location
services to the NYSE 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'') and modify the fee for users that host their customers at
the Exchange's Data Center. The text of the proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change

and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange operates a data center in Mahwah, New Jersey, from
which it provides co-location services to Users.\4\ The Exchange's co-
location services allow Users to rent space in the data center so they
may locate their electronic servers in close physical proximity to the
Exchange's trading and execution system.\5\ The Exchange proposes to
amend the Fee Schedules as they apply to co-location services to add
the definitions of User, Hosting User and Hosted Customer. The Exchange
also proposes to modify the fee for users that host their customers at
the Exchange's Data Center, effective January 1, 2016.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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).
    \5\ Id. at 70049.
    \6\ As specified in the Fee Schedules, a User that incurs co-
location fees for a particular co-location service pursuant thereto
would not be subject to co-location fees for the same co-location
service charged by the Exchange's affiliates NYSE MKT LLC and New
York Stock Exchange LLC. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
70173 (August 13, 2013), 78 FR 50459 (August 19, 2013) (SR-NYSEArca-
2013-80).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Definitions of User, Hosting User and Hosted Customer
    In 2011, the Exchange changed the definition of the term ``User,''
for the purposes of co-location services, to include any market
participant that requests to receive co-location services directly from
the Exchange.\7\ As described in the 2011 Releases, Users could include
ETP Holders and Sponsored Participants that term is defined in the
definitions section of the General and Floor Rules of the NYSE Arca
Marketplace pursuant to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.29 (see NYSE Arca
Equities Rule 1.1(yy)); OTP Holders, OTP Firms and Sponsored
Participants that are authorized to obtain access to the NYSE Arca
System pursuant to NYSE Arca Options Rule 6.2A (see NYSE Arca Options
Rule 6.1A(a)(19))(ETP Holders, OTP Holders, OTP Firms and Sponsored
Participants, together referred to herein as ``Member Organizations'');
and non-Member Organization broker-dealers and vendors that request to
receive co-location services directly from the Exchange. At the time,
the Exchange contemplated that such definition would encompass Users
that would provide, for example, hosting, service bureau, technical
support, risk management, order routing and market data delivery
services to their customers while such Users are co-located in the
Exchange's data center.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 65970 (December 15,
2011), 76 FR 79242 (December 21, 2011) (SR-NYSEArca-2011-74) and
65971 (December 15, 2011), 76 FR 79267 (December 21, 2011) (SR-
NYSEArca-2011-75) (the ``2011 Releases'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to add the current definition of User to the
Fee Schedules, without changes from the 2011 Releases, as follows:

    A ``User'' means any market participant that requests to receive
co-location services directly from the Exchange.

    The proposed definition would, consistent with the 2011 Releases,
encompass Member Organizations, Sponsored Participants and non-member
broker-dealers, as well as vendors that provide hosting, service bureau
and technical support, risk management services, order routing services
and market data delivery services to their customers while such Users
are co-located in the Exchange's data center. Any entity that could be
a User based on the term as described in the 2011 Releases would be
considered a User under the proposed definition.
    The Exchange also proposes to make a non-substantive change to the
description in the Fee Schedules of the Exchange's billing practice for
co-location services received by Users that connect to the Exchange and
one or more of its affiliates, by replacing the term, ``user,'' with
the defined term, ``User.''
    In the 2011 Releases, the Exchange also amended its Fee Schedules
to establish a fee applicable to Users that provide hosting services to
their customers at the Exchange's data center. As described in the 2011
Releases, ``hosting'' is a service offered by a User to another entity
in the User's space within the data center and can include, for
example, a User supporting such other entity's technology, whether
hardware or software, through the User's co-location space. The 2011
Releases used the term ``Hosted User'' to describe a customer to which
a User provides hosting services.
    The Exchange now proposes to include definitions relating to
hosting services in the Fee Schedules, as follows:

    A ``Hosting User'' means a User that hosts a Hosted Customer in
the User's co-location space.
    A ``Hosted Customer'' means a customer of a Hosting User that is
hosted in a Hosting User's co-location space.

    The proposed definition of ``Hosting User'' incorporates the
description of a User that hosts customers in its co-location space as
set forth in the 2011 Releases. For the avoidance of doubt, a Hosting
User must be a User pursuant to the proposed definition of User. Any
User that could be a Hosting User based on the description of a User
that hosts customers in the 2011 Releases would be considered a Hosting
User under the proposed definition.
    The proposed definition of ``Hosted Customer'' would be a customer
of a Hosting User that is hosted in a Hosting User's co-location space,
and would be consistent with the Fee Schedules [sic] the description of
the term, ``Hosted User'' used in the 2011 Releases.\8\ The Exchange
proposes to change the name of the term from ``Hosted User'' to
``Hosted Customer'' to make it clear that the entities that are hosted
are customers of the Hosting Users that do not, in contrast to Users,
have a direct contractual relationship with the Exchange vis-[agrave]-
vis co-location services. For consistency with this proposed change,
the Exchange also proposes to change the term ``Hosted User'' as used
in the ``Hosting Fee'' set forth in the Price List, to ``Hosted
Customer.'' Since, as noted above, only Users can be Hosting Users, a
Hosted Customer may not provide hosting services to any other entities
in the space in which it is hosted. Other than the change to the name
of the definition, no other changes to the definition are intended and
all current customers of a Hosting User would be ``Hosted Customers''
under the proposed definition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ A ``customer of a Hosting User,'' as used in the definition
of a ``Hosted Customer'' would be any person that has a contractual
relationship with a Hosting User to use that Hosting User's co-
location space. There is no limitation on the types of persons who
could be Hosted Customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hosting Fee
    In the 2011 Releases, the Exchange amended its Fee Schedules to
establish a fee charged to Users of $500.00 per month with respect to
each Hosted Customer (defined as ``Hosted User'' in the 2011 Releases)
that a User hosts in the Exchange's data center (the ``Hosting Fee'').

    Effective January 1, 2016, the Exchange proposes to modify the
Hosting Fee to provide that the Hosting Fee would be assessed to a
Hosting User on a per Hosted Customer basis and for each cabinet in
which the Hosted [sic] User hosts the Hosted Customer. This approach to
hosting fees is comparable to the structure used by the NASDAQ Stock
Market, Inc. (``NASDAQ'') in its Multi-Firm Cabinets Fee, and would
similarly mean that a Hosting User would be assessed the Hosting Fee
for each Hosted Customer that occupies space in a cabinet for that
cabinet.\9\ Thus, for example, if a Hosting User hosts a Hosted
Customer in two of the Hosting User's cabinets, the Hosting User would
becharged [sic] two Hosting Fees, one for each cabinet in which the
Hosted Customer is hosted. The Exchange also proposes to increase the
monthly Hosting Fee from $500 per Hosted Customer to $1,000 per Hosted
Customer for each cabinet in which the Hosted Customer is hosted,
effective January 1, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Nasdaq Rule 7034(a) and Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 71200 (Dec. 30, 2013), 79 FR 677 (Jan. 6, 2014) (SR-NASDAQ-2013-
57). [sic]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As is the case currently, Users may independently set fees for
their Hosted Customers and the Exchange would not receive a share of
any such fees.
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 Organization, a Sponsored Participant or an agent thereof
(e.g., a service bureau providing order entry services) and (ii) use of
the co-location services proposed herein would be completely voluntary
and available to all Users on a non-discriminatory basis.\10\ In
addition, 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.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 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.
    \11\ See SR-NYSEArca-2013-80, supra note 6 at 50459. The
Exchange's affiliates have also submitted substantially the same
proposed rule change to propose the changes described herein. See
SR-NYSE-2015-40 and SR-NYSEMKT-2015-67.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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,\12\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(5) of the Act,\13\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposal is not designed to permit
unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, broker, or dealers.
First, the proposed addition of the definitions for User, Hosting User
and Hosted Customer to the Fee Schedules, would, by their addition to
the Fee Schedules, make the application of such definitions more
accessible and transparent. There is no change to the definition of
User. There is no change to the definition of ``Hosted User'' as
described in the 2011 Releases other than to change the name to
``Hosted Customer'' to add clarity to the use and the application of
the definition. The proposed new term, ``Hosting User'' reflects the
description of a User that hosts customers in its co-location space as
set forth in the 2011 Releases. Finally, an entity that could be a
User, a User that hosts customers and a Hosted User based on the 2011
Releases, would be considered a User, Hosting User or Hosted Customer,
respectively under the proposed definitions. The proposed definitions
would be applied uniformly for comparable services provided by the
Exchange.
    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 definitions in the Fee Schedules,
the proposed change would provide Users with clarity as to the
availability and application of co-location hosting services and fees.
    The proposed change to the Hosting Fee would be applied uniformly
for comparable services provided by the Exchange to comparable Hosting
Users and their customers and would not unfairly discriminate between
similarly situated Hosting Users. The Exchange notes that assessing a
fee per Hosted Customer per cabinet is comparable to the approach that
NASDAQ takes to the same type of services in its Multi-Firm Cabinets
Fee.\14\ The Exchange also notes that the Hosting Fee has not been
changed since it was established in 2011. The Exchange believes the
proposed Hosting Fee is reasonable in that the fee is designed to
reflect the expenses and resources expended by the Exchange in
connection with hosting services. In addition, while Hosting Users may
independently set fees for their Hosted Customers, and the Exchange
would not receive a share of any such fees, the Hosting Fee on a per
Hosted Customer per cabinet basis continues to be lower than the fees a
Hosted Customer would pay for co-location space purchased directly from
the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See supra note 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\15\ in particular, because
it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among its Member Organizations, 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 initial installation and
ongoing monitoring, support and maintenance of such services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    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,\16\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that incorporating the definitions of User,
Hosting User and Hosted Customer into the Fee Schedules, the change to
the Hosting Fee and the change to the application of the Hosting Fee
will not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in further of the purposes of the Act because the
definitions have been previously filed with the Commission \17\ and
their inclusion in the Fee Schedules will provide further clarity in
the application of the fees. The Exchange believes that the changes to
the Hosting Fee will not impose any burden on competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in further of the purposes of the Act because
they are designed to reflect the expenses and resources expended by the
Exchange in connection with hosting services and because NASDAQ takes
the same approach to the same type of services in its Multi-Firm
Cabinets Fee.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See 2011 Releases, supra note 7.
    \18\ See supra note 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \19\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \20\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) requires a
self-regulatory organization to provide the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change 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-NYSEArca-2015-82 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-NYSEArca-2015-82. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2015-82 and should
be submitted on or before October 26, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-25176 Filed 10-2-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 54 (Monday, March 21, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15098-15099]
[FR Doc No: 2016-06285]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL16-46-000]

LS Power Development, LLC; Cross Texas Transmission, LLC; Notice
Of Petiton for Declaratory Order

    Take notice that on March 10, 2016, pursuant to Rule 207 of the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice
and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207 (2015), LS Power Development, LLC and
Cross Texas Transmission, LLC (Petitioners) filed a petition for
declaratory order (petition) confirming that the provision of certain
transmission operations control services by employees of Petitioners or
any of their affiliates will not cause the Electricity Reliability
Council of Texas (ERCOT), and/or ERCOT market participants to become
subject to Commission jurisdiction under Part II of the Federal Power
Act, 16 U.S.C. 824, et seq. (2012), all as more fully explained in the
petition.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in this proceeding
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) on or
before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. 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 on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Petitioners.
    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 proceeding are accessible in the
Commission's

eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list.
They are also 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 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 (866) 208-
3676 (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on April 11, 2016.

    Dated: March 14, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-06285 Filed 3-18-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P