[Federal Register: March 30, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 61)]
[Notices]
[Page 16143-16148]
[DOCID:fr30mr06-61]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PF06-14-000; COTP Savannah-06-04]

Southern LNG, Inc. and Elba Express Company, L.L.C.; Notice of
Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and U.S. Coast
Guard Letter of Recommendation for the Proposed Elba III Project,
Request for Comments on Environmental Issues, and Notice of Public
Comment Meetings

March 24, 2006.
    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) and
the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard (Coast
Guard) are in the process of evaluating the Elba III Project planned by
Southern LNG, Inc. and Elba Express Company, L.L.C., both wholly-owned
subsidiaries of Southern Natural Gas Company (SNG). The project would
consist of an expansion of SNG's existing onshore Elba Island Liquefied
Natural Gas (LNG) Import Terminal on the Savannah River in Georgia, and
construction and operation of onshore natural gas pipeline and
compressor facilities in various counties in Georgia and South
Carolina.
    As a part of this evaluation, the FERC staff will prepare an
environmental impact statement (EIS) that will address the
environmental impacts of the project. The Commission will use the EIS
in its decision-making process to determine whether or not to authorize
the project. The Coast Guard will assess the safety and security of the
import terminal expansion portion of the project and issue a Letter of
Recommendation. As described below, the FERC and the Coast Guard will
hold

public comment meetings to allow the public to provide input to these
assessments.
    This Notice of Intent (Notice) explains the scoping process that
will be used to gather information on the project from the public and
interested agencies, and summarizes the Coast Guard's process. Your
input will help identify the issues that need to be evaluated in the
EIS and in the Coast Guard's safety and security assessment. Please
note that the scoping period for the project will close on April 24,
2006.
    The FERC will be the lead federal agency in the preparation of an
EIS that will satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Two other federal agencies have already
agreed to serve as cooperating agencies during preparation of the EIS:
the Coast Guard and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). The COE
(Savannah and Charleston Districts) has agreed to participate as a
cooperating agency in the preparation of this EIS to satisfy its NEPA
responsibilities under section 404 of the Clean Water Act and section
10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. In addition, we have invited the U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service; the U.S. Department of Commerce, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries
Service; the Georgia Department of Natural Resources; and the South
Carolina Department of Natural Resources to serve as cooperating
agencies in the preparation of this EIS.
    With this Notice, we \1\ are asking other Federal, state, and local
agencies with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to
environmental issues in the project area to formally cooperate with us
in the preparation of this EIS. These agencies may choose to
participate once they have evaluated the planned project relative to
their responsibilities. Agencies that would like to request cooperating
agency status should follow the instructions for filing comments
described in the Public Participation section of this Notice.
    We encourage government representatives to notify their
constituents of this planned project and encourage them to comment on
their areas of concern. Comments on the project may be submitted in
written form or verbally. Instructions for the submission of written
comments are provided in the Public Participation section of this
Notice. In lieu of sending written comments, we invite you to attend
the public scoping meetings that we have scheduled as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``We,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the FERC's Office of Energy Projects.

               Schedule and Locations for Public Meetings
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Date and time                           Location
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monday, April 10, 2006, at     Comfort Inn & Suites Conference Center
 7:00 p.m..                     (Southburg Chateau Room), 301 Governor
                                Truetlen Drive, Pooler, GA 31322; Phone:
<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Tuesday, April 11, 2006, at    Sylvania Recreation Building, 605 Millen
 7:00 p.m..                     Highway, Sylvania, GA 30467; Phone:
<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Wednesday, April 12, 2006 at   Thomson High School Cafeteria, 1160 White
 7:00 p.m..                     Oak Road, Thomson, GA 30824; Phone:
<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Thursday, April 13, 2006 at    Washington-Wilkes High School Cafeteria,
 7:00 p.m..                     304 Gordon Street, Washington, GA 30673;
                                Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The scoping meeting in Pooler, Georgia, will be combined with the
Coast Guard's public meeting regarding the safety and security of the
import terminal expansion. At that meeting, the Coast Guard will
discuss the process for assessing the suitability of the Savannah River
to accommodate increased LNG carrier traffic, and the comprehensive
review of the facility's operations manual, emergency response plan,
and security plan. The Coast Guard's Letter of Recommendation process
is further described below.
    This Notice is being sent to Federal, state, and local government
agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups;
Native American tribes; commentors and other interested parties; and
local libraries and newspapers. This includes all landowners who are
potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily
for project purposes, or who own homes within distances defined in the
Commission's regulations of certain aboveground facilities. We
encourage government representatives to notify their constituents of
this planned project and encourage them to comment on their areas of
concern. To ensure that your comments are considered, please follow the
instructions in the Public Participation section below.
    If you are a landowner receiving this Notice, you may be contacted
by an SNG representative about the acquisition of an easement to
construct, operate, and maintain the proposed pipeline facilities. The
pipeline company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable
agreement. However, if the pipeline portion of the project is approved
by the FERC, that approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain
to secure easements for the facilities. Therefore, if easement
negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline company could
initiate condemnation proceedings in accordance with state law.
    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural
Gas Facility on My Land? What Do I Need to Know?'' is available for
viewing on the FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov. This fact

sheet addresses a number of typically asked questions, including the
use of eminent domain for pipeline facilities and how to participate in
the FERC's proceedings.

Summary of the Planned Project

    Southern LNG, Inc. plans to construct and operate an expansion of
its existing Elba Island LNG Import Terminal on the Savannah River in
Georgia (Elba Terminal Expansion), and Elba Express Company, L.L.C.
plans to construct and operate a natural gas transmission pipeline in
Georgia and South Carolina (Elba Express Pipeline). The general
location of the project is shown in appendix 1.

Elba Terminal Expansion

    Southern LNG Inc. plans to construct and operate an expansion to
its existing LNG import terminal on Elba Island near Savannah, in
Chatham County, Georgia. The expansion would (a) more than double the
site's LNG storage capacity by adding 400,000 cubic meters

(m3) of new storage; (b) substantially increase the
facility's existing vaporization capacity; (c) upgrade the terminal's
send-out meter station to increase the natural gas send-out capacity of
the facility by an additional 900 million cubic feet per day (MMcfd);
and (d) modify the terminal's LNG tanker berthing and unloading
facilities to accommodate larger tankers and provide faster and
simultaneous unloading of two LNG tankers. All of the planned
facilities would be located entirely within the existing 190-acre
facility site on Elba Island.
    The LNG terminal expansion would be constructed in two phases, A
and B. Phase A would be completed as early as January 2010 and would
include the following facilities:
    a. One new 200,000 m3 LNG storage tank, one associated
boil-off gas condenser, and three boil-off gas compressors;
    b. Three submerged combustion vaporizers, each with a peak capacity
of 180 MMcfd, providing an incremental peak send-out capacity of 540
MMcfd (or a total peak send-out capacity of 1,755 MMcfd for the full
facility at the completion of phase A); and
    c. Modifications to the unloading docks to accommodate new, larger
LNG tankers and to allow simultaneous unloading of two LNG tankers. The
modifications to the dual berthing slip include:
     Adding four mooring dolphins (two for each berth);
     Dredging approximately 20,500 cubic yards of material from
the slope at the back of the existing slip (and disposing of dredged
material into the existing spoil disposal area adjacent to the
terminal); and
     Installing a sheetpile bulkhead at the back of the slip.
These modifications would allow the slip to accommodate larger LNG
tankers with an approximate overall length of 345 meters (m) (compared
to the current 288 m), breadth of 55 m (compared to the current 49 m),
design laden draft of 12.0 m (compared to the current 11.7 m), and
displacement of 177,000 metric tons (compared to the current 128,000
metric tons).
    Phase B would be completed no later than December 2012 and would
include the following facilities:
    a. One new 200,000 m3 LNG storage tank; and
    b. Three submerged combustion vaporizers (two for service and one
spare), each with a peak capacity of 180 MMcfd, providing an
incremental peak send-out capacity of 360 MMcfd (or a total peak send-
out capacity of 2,115 MMcfd for the full facility at the completion of
phase B).
    Each of the two phases would include all necessary ancillary
equipment including related pumps, piping, controls and appurtenances,
and associated systems (electrical, mechanical, civil, instrumentation,
hazard detection, and fire protection) and buildings necessary to
accommodate the associated tanks and vaporizer units. Southern LNG
estimates that following the expansion, the terminal would receive LNG
shipments about every 5 to 10 days, depending on natural gas demand and
LNG carrier size.

Elba Express Pipeline

    Elba Express Company, L.L.C. plans to construct and operate about
188 miles of new natural gas pipeline and appurtenant facilities in
Georgia and South Carolina. The pipeline would be constructed in two
phases, extending between an interconnection with SNG near Port
Wentworth, Chatham County, Georgia on the southern end and an
interconnection with Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation
(Transco) in Anderson County, South Carolina on the northern end.
    The first phase is proposed to be placed in service as early as
January 2010 with a design capacity of 945 MMcfd, and would consist of:
    a. The ``Southern Segment,'' which includes about 104.6 miles of
42-inch-diameter pipeline extending from Port Wentworth to the existing
SNG Wrens Compressor Station (Wrens) in Jefferson County, Georgia (to
be collocated with the existing SNG pipelines); and
    b. The ``Northern Segment,'' which includes about 83.8 miles of 36-
inch-diameter pipeline extending from Wrens to interconnects with
Transco in Hart County, Georgia, and Anderson County, South Carolina.
    The second phase would also involve construction and operation of a
new compressor station of about 1,000 horsepower near Woodcliff,
Screven County, Georgia, where SNG currently operates other aboveground
facilities. The compressor station would increase the pipeline design
capacity by 230 MMcfd to a total of 1,175 MMcfd, and is proposed to be
placed in service no later than December 2012 (corresponding to the in-
service date for Phase B of the Elba terminal expansion).

Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction workspace for the Elba Terminal Expansion is
undetermined at this time, but would be located entirely within the
existing 190-acre facility site. SNG estimates that construction of the
Elba Express Pipeline facilities would require about 1,600 acres of
land, not including warehouses, staging areas, pipe storage yards,
contractor yards, and access roads. The typical construction right-of-
way for the Southern Segment would be 125 feet wide (for the 42-inch-
diamter pipeline) and would overlap the existing SNG rights-of-way by
varying widths based upon the existing right-of-way configuration. The
typical construction right-of-way for the Northern Segment would be 110
feet wide (for the 36-inch-diameter pipeline) and, as currently
planned, would not be located adjacent to existing rights-of-way.
Temporary extra workspace would also be required outside the typical
construction right-of-way at certain feature crossings (e.g., roads,
railroads, waterbodies) and in areas requiring extensive topsoil
segregation or special construction techniques.
    The construction and operation workspace at the compressor station
would be on a 15-acre site and used for certain miscellaneous
facilities (i.e., metering, mainline valves, pig launching and
receiving equipment). This site would be primarily within, or adjacent
to, the proposed right-of-way.
    Following construction, new permanent right-of-way would be
required for the pipeline, compressor station, and miscellaneous
facilities. Temporary workspace that is used outside existing rights-
of-way would be restored and allowed to revert to its current use.

The EIS Process

    NEPA requires the FERC to take into account the environmental
impacts that could result from an action when it considers whether an
LNG import terminal expansion or an interstate natural gas pipeline
should be approved. The FERC will use the EIS to consider the
environmental impacts that could result if it issues project
authorizations to SNG under sections 3 and 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
NEPA also requires us to discover and address concerns the public may
have about proposals. This process is referred to as ``scoping.'' The
main goal of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EIS on
the important environmental issues and reasonable alternatives. With
this Notice, we are requesting public comments on the scope of the
issues to be addressed in the EIS. All comments received will be
considered during preparation of the EIS.
    In the EIS we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of
the construction, operation, maintenance, and abandonment of the
project. We will also evaluate possible alternatives

to the planned project or portions of the project, and make
recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on various resource
areas. The EIS will be used by the Commission in its decision-making
process to determine whether the project is consistent with the public
interest. If it finds such, it will issue an order authorizing the
project.
    Our independent analysis of the issues will be included in a draft
EIS. The draft EIS will be mailed to Federal, state, and local
government agencies; elected officials; environmental and public
interest groups; Native American tribes; commentors; other interested
parties; local libraries and newspapers; and the FERC's official
service list for this proceeding. A 45-day comment period will be
allotted for review of the draft EIS. We will consider all timely
comments on the draft EIS and revise the document, as necessary, before
issuing a final EIS.
    Although no formal application has been filed with the FERC, we
have already initiated our NEPA review under the Commission's Pre-
Filing Process. The purpose of the Pre-Filing Process is to encourage
early involvement of interested stakeholders and to identify and
resolve issues before an application is filed with the FERC. The Coast
Guard, which will be responsible for reviewing the safety and security
aspects of the planned terminal expansion and regulating safety and
security if the project is approved, has initiated its review as well.

Coast Guard Letter of Recommendation Process

    In accordance with the requirements of Title 33 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, part 127.009 (33 CFR 127.009), the Coast Guard
Captain of the Port (COTP) Savannah is preparing a Letter of
Recommendation as to the suitability of the Savannah River for a
potential increase in LNG marine traffic. The Letter of Recommendation
is in response to a Letter of Intent submitted by Southern LNG, Inc. to
expand its LNG import terminal facility on Elba Island near Savannah,
Georgia. The COTP Savannah is soliciting written comments and related
material, and will hold a public meeting in conjunction with the FERC
seeking comments, pertaining specifically to maritime safety and
security aspects of the proposed LNG facility expansion. In preparation
for issuance of a Letter of Recommendation and the completion of
certain other regulatory mandates, the COTP Savannah will consider
comments received from the public as input into a formalized risk
assessment process. This process will assess the safety and security
aspects of the facility, adjacent port areas, and navigable waterways.

Background and Purpose

    In accordance with the requirements of 33 CFR 127.007, Southern
LNG, Inc. submitted a Letter of Intent on January 12, 2006, to expand
its LNG import facility on Elba Island near Savannah, Georgia. This
portion of the overall project is referred to as the Elba III Terminal
Expansion Project.
    Southern LNG, Inc.'s Elba Island facility is designed for marine
receipt of LNG for storage, re-gasification, and delivery into the
interstate natural gas pipeline network. The proposed expansion is
described in the Summary of Planned Project--LNG Terminal Expansion
section of this Notice. The Coast Guard exercises regulatory authority
over LNG facilities which affect the safety and security of port areas
and navigable waterways under Executive Order 10173, the Magnuson Act
(50 U.S.C. 191), the Port and Waterways Safety Act of 1972, as amended
(33 U.S.C. 1221 et seq.) and the Maritime Transportation Security Act
of 2002 (46 U.S.C. 701). The Coast Guard is responsible for matters
related to navigation safety, vessel engineering and safety standards,
and all matters pertaining to the safety of facilities or equipment
located in or adjacent to navigable waters up to the last valve
immediately before the receiving tanks. The Coast Guard also has
authority for LNG facility security plan review, approval, and
compliance verification as provided in 33 CFR part 105, and
recommendation for siting as it pertains to the management of vessel
traffic in and around the LNG facility.
    Upon receipt of a Letter of Intent from an owner or operator
intending to build or expand an LNG facility, the Coast Guard COTP
conducts an analysis that results in a Letter of Recommendation issued
to the owner or operator and to the state and local governments having
jurisdiction, addressing the suitability of the waterway to accommodate
an increase of LNG carrier traffic. Specifically, the Letter of
Recommendation addresses the suitability of the waterway based on:
     The physical location and layout of the facility and its
berthing and mooring arrangements;
     The LNG vessels characteristics and the frequency of LNG
shipments to the facility;
     Commercial, industrial, environmentally sensitive, and
residential areas in and adjacent to the waterway used by LNG vessels
en route to the facility;
     Density and character of marine traffic on the waterway;
     Bridge or other manmade obstructions in the waterway;
     Depth of water;
     Tidal range;
     Natural hazards, including rocks and sandbars;
     Underwater pipelines and cables; and
     Distance of berthed LNG vessels from the channel, and the
width of the channel.
    In addition, the Coast Guard will review and approve the updated
facility operations manual and emergency response plan (33 CFR
127.019), as well as the updated facility security plan (33 CFR
105.410). The Coast Guard will also provide input to other Federal,
state, and local government agencies reviewing the project. Under an
interagency agreement, the Coast Guard will provide input to FERC--the
lead Federal agency for authorizing the siting and construction of
onshore LNG facilities--on the maritime safety and security aspects of
the Elba III Terminal Expansion Project. To help FERC make sure that
the EIS covers the Coast Guard's Letter of Recommendation and other
actions under this proposal, the Coast Guard will serve as a
cooperating agency.
    In order to complete a thorough analysis and fulfill the regulatory
mandates cited above, the COTP Savannah will be conducting a formal
risk assessment and evaluation of various safety and security aspects
associated with the Elba III Terminal Expansion Project. This
assessment will be accomplished through workshops focusing on waterways
safety, port security, and consequence management, with involvement
from a broad cross-section of government and port stakeholders with
expertise in each of the respective areas. The workshops will be by
invitation only, but comments received during the public comment period
will be considered as input into the risk assessment process.

Currently Identified Environmental Issues

    We have already identified issues that we think deserve attention
based on attendance at SNG's Open House meetings, verbal comments and
comment letters received thus far, a preliminary review of the project
area, and information provided by SNG. This preliminary list of issues
will be revised based on your comments and our continuing analyses.
     Conversion of the planned pipeline right-of-way from
private/commercial and forested land uses to pipeline

easement, and associated economic impact;
     Potential impacts on watersheds and associated wetlands,
tributaries and streams, and sensitive aquatic and terrestrial
wildlife;
     Potential biological impacts from ballast water intake by
the LNG carriers;
     Potential impacts on federally listed threatened and
endangered species;
     Potential impacts on essential fish habitat;
     Consistency with Georgia Coastal Zone Management program;
     Potential impacts on air quality resulting from operation
of the pipeline compressor station, expanded LNG terminal, and
increased LNG carrier traffic;
     Potential impacts of increased LNG carrier traffic and
associated support vessels on other river users;
     Potential impacts on cultural resources;
     Risks associated with the transport and storage of LNG;
     Alternative locations for the LNG terminal expansion and
pipeline route alignment, respectively; and
     Assessment of the cumulative effects of the project when
combined with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future
actions in the project area.

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the planned project. By becoming a
commentor, your concerns will be addressed in the EIS and considered by
the Commission. Your comments should focus on the potential
environmental effects, reasonable alternatives (including alternative
facility sites and pipeline routes), and measures to avoid or lessen
environmental impacts. In addition, the Coast Guard encourages you to
submit written comments and related material pertaining specifically to
marine safety and security aspects associated with the proposed LNG
facility expansion. To maintain a single administrative record and
public comment repository, all original written comments and related
material associated with the Coast Guard's Letter of Recommendation
process must be submitted to the FERC. The more specific your comments,
the more useful they will be. To ensure that your comments are timely
and properly recorded, please follow these instructions:
     Send an original and two copies of your letter to: Magalie
R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426;
     Label one copy of your comments for the attention of Gas
Branch 1, DG2E;
     Reference Docket No. PF06-14-000 on the original and both
copies; and
     Mail your comments so that they will be received in
Washington, DC on or before April 24, 2006.
    If you submit comments by mail, submit them in an unbound format,
no larger than 8.5 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic
filing. However, the Commission strongly encourages electronic filing
of any comments in response to this Notice. For information on
electronically filing comments, please see the instructions on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov under the ``e-Filing''

link and the link to the User's Guide as well as information in 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii). Before you can file comments you will need to
create a free account, which can be accomplished online.
    Comment letters received by the FERC regarding the Coast Guard's
safety and security assessment and Letter of Recommendation will be
forwarded to the Coast Guard. Although original written comments must
be submitted to the FERC, you may submit an identical copy of your
written comments to: Commanding Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety
Unit Savannah, 100 W. Oglethorpe, Savannah, GA 31401.
    Marine Safety Unit Savannah maintains a file for this Notice.
Comments and material received will become part of this file and will
be available for inspection and copying at Marine Safety Unit Savannah
between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. The Coast Guard's comment period will run concurrently with
the FERC's 30-day public scoping period.
    The public scoping meetings (details provided above) are designed
to provide another opportunity to offer comments on the proposed
project. Interested groups and individuals are encouraged to attend the
meetings and to present comments on the environmental issues that they
believe should be addressed in the EIS. A transcript of each meeting
will be generated so that your comments will be accurately recorded.
    To provide the public an opportunity to comment on the planned LNG
facility expansion, the Coast Guard will hold a public meeting in
conjunction with the FERC staff in Pooler, Georgia, on April 10, 2006.
Organizations and members of the public may provide oral statements
regarding the suitability of the Savannah River for an increase in LNG
vessel traffic at the Pooler public meeting. In the interest of time
and use of the public meeting facility, oral statements may be limited
to five minutes (depending on the number of speakers). Persons wishing
to make oral statements should notify the FERC when signing in at the
meeting. Written comments may be submitted at the meeting or to the
FERC as discussed above.
    When SNG formally files its application to site, construct, and
operate its proposed project, the Commission will publish a Notice of
Application in the Federal Register. The applicant will provide a copy
of this notice to affected landowners within 3 days of its issuance.
The Notice of Application will establish a deadline for interested
parties to intervene in the proceeding. Because the Commission's Pre-
Filing Process occurs before an application to begin a proceeding is
officially filed, petitions to intervene during this process are
premature and will not be accepted by the Commission.

Environmental Mailing List and EIS Format

    If you do not wish to remain on the environmental mailing list to
receive notices or the EIS for this planned project, please return the
mailer attached as appendix 2.
    To reduce printing and mailing costs, the draft and final EIS will
be issued in both compact disk (CD-ROM) and hard copy formats. The FERC
strongly encourages the use of CD-ROM format in its publication of
large documents. Thus, all recipients will automatically receive the
EIS on CD-ROM. If you wish to receive a paper copy of the draft EIS
instead of a CD-ROM, you must indicate that choice on the return
mailer.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC (3372) or on
the FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) using the ``eLibrary''

link. Click on the eLibrary link, select ``General Search'' and enter
the project docket number excluding the last three digits (i.e., PF06-
14) in the ``Docket Number'' field. Be sure you have selected an
appropriate date range. For assistance with eLibrary, the eLibrary
helpline can be reached at 1-866-208-3676, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by e-
mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The eLibrary link on the FERC
Internet Web site also provides access to the texts of formal documents
issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rule makings.

    If you have any questions about the Coast Guard's safety and
security assessment or its Letter of Recommendation process, contact
Lieutenant Andy Meyers or Charlie Johnson at Marine Safety Unit
Savannah,<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER> (fax).
    In addition, the FERC now offers a free service called
eSubscription that allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and
submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you
spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. To register for this service, go to http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm
.

    Public meetings or site visits will be posted on the Commission's
calendar located at http://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx

along with other related information.
    Finally, SNG has established an Internet Web site for this project
at http://www.elba3.com. The Web site includes a description of the

project, additional maps of the project area, and answers to frequently
asked questions. You can also request additional information or provide
comments directly to SNG at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-4654 Filed 3-29-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2008-0166; FRL -      ]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Alaska;

Interstate Transport of Pollution

AGENCY:  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:  Proposed rule.

SUMMARY:  EPA is proposing to approve the action of the Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) to address the
provisions of Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-hour ozone
and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).  These
provisions require each state to submit a State Implementation Plan
(SIP) revision that prohibits emissions that adversely affect another
state’s air quality through interstate transport.  EPA is proposing to
approve ADEC’s SIP revision because it adequately addresses the four
distinct elements related to the impact of interstate transport of air
pollutants for the state of Alaska.   These include prohibiting
emissions that contribute significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in
another state, interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS by another state,
interfere with plans in another state to prevent significant
deterioration of air quality, or interfere with efforts of another state
to protect visibility.

DATES:  Comments must be received on or before [insert date 30 days from
the date of publication in the Federal Register].

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No.
EPA-R10-OAR-2008-0166, by one of the following methods:

A.	  HYPERLINK http://www.regulations.gov. http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.

B. 	Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
C.	Mail:  Donna Deneen, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, AWT-107 EPA,
Region 10, 1200 Sixth Ave., Suite 900, Seattle, Washington 98101.

D.	 Hand Delivery or Courier: EPA, Region 10 Mail Room, 9th Floor, 1200
Sixth Ave., Seattle, Washington 98101. Attention: Donna Deneen, Office
of Air, Waste and Toxics, AWT-107.  Such deliveries are only accepted
during normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be
made for deliveries of boxed information.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Please see the direct final rule which is located
in the Rules section of this Federal Register for detailed instructions
on how to submit comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Donna Deneen at telephone number:
(206) 553-6706, e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS> HYPERLINK
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>  fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or the above
EPA, Region 10 address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:   	For further information, please see the
direct final action, of the same title, which is located in the Rules
section of this Federal Register.  EPA is approving the State’s SIP
revision as a direct final rule without prior proposal because EPA views
this as a noncontroversial SIP revision and anticipates no adverse
comments.  A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the
preamble to the direct final rule.  If EPA receives no adverse comments,
EPA will not take further action on this proposed rule.

	If EPA receives adverse comments, EPA will withdraw the direct final
rule and it will not take effect.  EPA will address all public comments
in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule.  EPA will not
institute a second comment period on this action.  Any parties
interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time.
Please note that if we receive adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

Dated:	   October 1, 2008
___________________________

								Elin D. Miller

																Regional Administrator

																Region 10.

 PAGE

 PAGE

 PAGE   3


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 237 (Monday, December 10, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73488-73489]
[FR Doc No: 2012-29667]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1971-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2011-0001]

Alabama; Amendment No. 19 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the
State of Alabama (FEMA-1971-DR), dated April 28, 2011, and related
determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: November 28, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated November 28, 2012, the President amended the cost-sharing
arrangements regarding Federal funds provided under the authority of
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42
U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford Act''), in a letter to W. Craig
Fugate, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department
of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Alabama resulting from severe storms, tornadoes, straight-line
winds, and flooding during the period of April 15 to May 31, 2011,
is of sufficient severity and magnitude that special cost sharing
arrangements are warranted regarding Federal funds provided under
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act,
42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford Act'').
    Therefore, I amend my declaration of April 28, 2011, to
authorize Federal funds for all categories of Public Assistance at
90 percent of total eligible costs.

    This adjustment to State and local cost sharing applies only to
Public Assistance costs and direct Federal assistance eligible for
such adjustments under the law. The Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act specifically prohibits a similar
adjustment for funds provided for Other Needs Assistance (Section
408) and the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (Section 404). These
funds will continue to be reimbursed at 75 percent of total eligible
costs.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2012-29667 Filed 12-7-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 7 (Monday, January 12, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1527-1532]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00212]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73993; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2014-147]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fees
for NYSE Arca Integrated Feed To Establish Eligibility Requirements for
Redistribution

January 6, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on December 24, 2014, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or the
``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 by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the fees for NYSE Arca Integrated
Feed to establish eligibility requirements for redistribution on a
managed non-display basis and to establish an access fee for managed
non-display data recipients, operative on January 1, 2015. 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
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the fees for NYSE Arca Integrated
Feed, as set forth on the NYSE Arca Equities Proprietary Market Data
Fees Schedule (``Fee Schedule''), to establish eligibility requirements
for redistribution of market data on a Managed Non-Display basis and
establish an access fee for Managed Non-Display data recipients,
operative on January 1, 2015.
    Non-Display Use of NYSE Arca market data means accessing,
processing, or consuming NYSE Arca market data delivered via direct
and/or Redistributor \3\ data feeds for a purpose

other than in support of a data recipient's display or further internal
or external redistribution. A Redistributor approved for Managed Non-
Display Services manages and controls the access to NYSE Arca
Integrated Feed and does not allow for further internal distribution or
external redistribution of NYSE Arca Integrated Feed by the data
recipients. Managed Non-Display Services Fees apply when a data
recipient's non-display applications are hosted by a Redistributor that
has been approved for Managed Non-Display Services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Redistributor'' means a vendor or any other person that
provides an NYSE Arca data product to a data recipient or to any
system that a data recipient uses, irrespective of the means of
transmission or access.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A Redistributor approved for Managed Non-Display Services is
required to report to the Exchange on a monthly basis the data
recipients that are receiving NYSE Arca Integrated Feed through the
Redistributor's Managed Non-Display Service. A data recipient receiving
NYSE Arca Integrated Feed through a Redistributor's Managed Non-Display
Service does not have any reporting requirements.
    Currently, to be approved for Managed Non-Display Services, a
Redistributor of the Managed Non-Display Services must be approved
under the Unit-of-Count policy.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 69315 (Apr. 5,
2013), 78 FR 21668 (Apr. 11, 2013) (SR-NYSEArca-2013-37) and 73011
(Sept. 5, 2014), 79 FR 54315 (Sept. 11, 2014) (SR-NYSEArca-2014-93)
(``Non-Display Fee filings'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing to retire the Unit-of-Count Policy, and
as a result, eligibility for Managed Non-Display Services of NYSE Arca
Integrated Feed would no longer be based on eligibility under the Unit-
of-Count Policy. The Exchange proposes instead to establish eligibility
requirements specifically for the redistribution of market data for
Managed Non-Display Services. The Exchange also proposes to add an
access fee that would apply to a data recipient that receives NYSE Arca
Integrated Feed from an approved Redistributor of Managed Non-Display
Services.
    The proposed eligibility requirements for the provision of Managed
Non-Display Services would be similar to the eligibility requirements
for the Unit-of-Count Policy in that they would require the
Redistributor to manage and control the access to NYSE Arca Integrated
Feed for data recipients' non-display applications and not allow for
further internal distribution or external redistribution of the
information by data recipients. In addition, to be eligible to provide
Managed Non-Display Services, the Redistributor would be required to
(a) host the data recipients' non-display applications in equipment
located in the Redistributor's data center and/or hosted space/cage and
(b) offer NYSE Arca Integrated Feed in the Redistributor's own
messaging formats (rather than using raw NYSE message formats) by
reformatting and/or altering NYSE Arca Integrated Feed prior to
retransmission without affecting the integrity of NYSE Arca Integrated
Feed and without rendering NYSE Arca Integrated Feed inaccurate,
unfair, uninformative, fictitious, misleading or discriminatory. The
proposed eligibility requirements are similar to data distribution
models currently in use and align the Exchange with other markets.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 70748 (Oct. 23,
2013), 70748 (Oct. 23, 2013), 78 FR 64569 (Oct. 29, 2013) (SR-Phlx-
2013-105) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness of proposed
rule change to establish non-display Managed Data Solution for
NASDAQ OMX PHLX (``Phlx'')); 70269 (Aug. 27, 2013), 78 FR 54336
(Sept. 3, 2013) (SR-NASDAQ-2013-106) (notice of filing and immediate
effectiveness of proposed rule change to establish non-display
Managed Data Solution for NASDAQ Stock Market (``NASDAQ'')); and
69182 (Mar. 19, 2013), 78 FR 18378 (Mar. 26, 2013) (SR-Phlx-2013-28)
(notice of filing and immediate effectiveness of proposed rule
change to establish non-display Managed Data Solution for Phlx
equities market PSX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The reporting requirements associated with the Managed Non-Display
Service would not change. A Redistributor approved for Managed Non-
Display Service would be required to report to the Exchange on a
monthly basis the data recipients that are receiving NYSE Arca
Integrated Feed through the Redistributor's Managed Non-Display
Service. A data recipient receiving NYSE Arca Integrated Feed through a
Redistributor's Managed Non-Display Service would continue not to have
any reporting requirements.
    In addition, the Exchange proposes to adopt an Access Fee of
$1,500/month applicable only to data recipients that receive NYSE Arca
Integrated Feed from an approved Redistributor of Managed Non-Display
Services, operative January 1, 2015. Currently, data recipients,
including recipients of Managed Non-Display Services, are required to
pay an Access Fee of $3,000/month to receive NYSE Arca Integrated Feed.
Because the purpose of an access fee is to charge data recipients for
access to the Exchange's proprietary market data, the Exchange believes
it is appropriate to charge an access fee to all data recipients,
including recipients of Managed Non-Display Services.\6\ In recognition
that data recipients of Managed Non-Display Services receive NYSE Arca
Integrated Feed in a controlled format, the Exchange proposes to
establish an Access Fee that would be applicable only to data
recipients of Managed Non-Display Services and that would be half the
size of the current Access Fee. In connection with this change, the
Exchange also proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to specify that the
current Access Fee of $3,000/month is charged to data recipients other
than those receiving data through Managed Non-Display Services. The
proposed Managed Non-Display Access fee would be in addition to the
current Managed Non-Display Services Fee of $2,500/month by each data
recipient.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In order to harmonize its approach to fees for its market
data products, the Exchange is proposing to establish an access fee
for Managed Non-Display Services for NYSE Arca BBO, NYSE Arca
Trades, and NYSE ArcaBook that are also half of the existing access
fee for each respective data feed. See SR-NYSEArca-2014-148 and SR-
NYSEArca-2014-149.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\7\ in general, and
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\8\ in particular, in that it
provides an equitable allocation of reasonable fees among users and
recipients of the data and is not designed to permit unfair
discrimination among customers, issuers, and brokers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that revising the eligibility requirements
for Managed Non-Display Services so that the requirements are more
closely aligned with the nature of the services being provided is
reasonable. The proposed additional requirements for hosting in the
Redistributor's data center and for reformatting and/or altering the
market data prior to retransmission are also consistent with similar
requirements of other markets for the provision of managed data.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed Access Fee for Managed Non-
Display Services is reasonable, because the data is of value to
recipients, and it is reasonable to charge them a lower access fee
because they are receiving the data through a Redistributor in a
controlled form rather than from the Exchange in raw form. The Exchange
believes that the proposed fee directly and appropriately reflects the
significant value of using non-display data in a wide range of
computer-automated functions relating to both trading and non-trading
activities and that the number and range of these functions continue to
grow through innovation

and technology developments. NASDAQ and Phlx also both offer managed
non-display data solutions and charge access fees for such
services.\10\ The fee is also equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because it would apply to all data recipients that choose to subscribe
to Managed Non-Display Services for NYSE Arca Integrated Feed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See supra note 5. NASDAQ offers a Managed Data Solution
that assesses a monthly Managed Data Solution Administration fee of
$1,500 and monthly Subscriber fees of $60 for non-professionals to
$300 for professionals. See NASDAQ Rule 7026(b). Phlx charges a
monthly Managed Data Solution Administration fee of $2,000 and a
monthly Subscriber fee of $500. The monthly License fee is in
addition to the monthly Distributor fee of $3,500 (for external
usage), and the $500 monthly Subscriber fee is assessed for each
Subscriber of a Managed Data Solution. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 70748 (Oct. 23, 2013), 78 FR 64569 (Oct. 29, 2013) (SR-
Phlx-2013-105).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The fees are also equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because
they will apply to all data recipients that choose to subscribe to the
feeds.
    The Exchange notes that NYSE Arca Integrated Feed is entirely
optional. The Exchange is not required to make NYSE Arca Integrated
Feed available or to offer any specific pricing alternatives to any
customers, nor is any firm required to purchase NYSE Arca Integrated
Feed. Firms that do purchase NYSE Arca Integrated Feed do so for the
primary goals of using it to increase revenues, reduce expenses, and in
some instances compete directly with the Exchange (including for order
flow); those firms are able to determine for themselves whether NYSE
Arca Integrated Feed or any other similar products are attractively
priced or not.
    Firms that do not wish to purchase NYSE Arca Integrated Feed at the
new prices have a variety of alternative market data products from
which to choose,\11\ or if NYSE Arca Integrated Feed does not provide
sufficient value to firms as offered based on the uses those firms have
or planned to make of it, such firms may simply choose to conduct their
business operations in ways that do not use NYSE Arca Integrated Feed.
The Exchange notes that broker-dealers are not required to purchase
proprietary market data to comply with their best execution
obligations.\12\ Similarly, there is no requirement in Regulation NMS
or any other rule that proprietary data be utilized for order routing
decisions, and some broker-dealers and ATSs have chosen not to do
so.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See NASDAQ Rule 7023 (Nasdaq Totalview) and BATS Rule
11.22.(a) and (c) (BATS TCP Pitch and Multicast Pitch).
    \12\ See In the Matter of the Application of Securities Industry
And Financial Markets Association For Review of Actions Taken by
Self-Regulatory Organizations, Release Nos. 34-72182; AP-3-15350;
AP-3-15351 (May 16, 2014).
    \13\ For example, Goldman Sachs Execution and Clearing, L.P. has
disclosed that it does not use proprietary market data in connection
with Sigma X, its ATS. See response to Question E3, available at
http://www.goldmansachs.com/media-relations/in-the-news/current/pdf-media/gsec-order-handling-practices-ats-specific.pdf. By way of
comparison, IEX has disclosed that it uses proprietary market data
feeds from all registered stock exchanges and the LavaFlow ECN. See
http://www.iextrading.com/about/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit in NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir.
2010), upheld reliance by the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') upon the existence of competitive market mechanisms to
set reasonable and equitably allocated fees for proprietary market
data:

    In fact, the legislative history indicates that the Congress
intended that the market system `evolve through the interplay of
competitive forces as unnecessary regulatory restrictions are
removed' and that the SEC wield its regulatory power `in those
situations where competition may not be sufficient,' such as in the
creation of a `consolidated transactional reporting system.'

Id. at 535 (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 94-229 at 92 (1975), as reprinted in
1975 U.S.C.C.A.N. 323). The court agreed with the Commission's
conclusion that ``Congress intended that `competitive forces should
dictate the services and practices that constitute the U.S. national
market system for trading equity securities.' '' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ NetCoalition, 615 F.3d at 535.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained below in the Exchange's Statement on Burden on
Competition, the Exchange believes that there is substantial evidence
of competition in the marketplace for proprietary market data and that
the Commission can rely upon such evidence in concluding that the fees
established in this filing are the product of competition and therefore
satisfy the relevant statutory standards. In addition, the existence of
alternatives to these data products, such as consolidated data and
proprietary data from other sources, as described below, further
ensures that the Exchange cannot set unreasonable fees, or fees that
are unreasonably discriminatory, when vendors and subscribers can
select such alternatives.
    As the NetCoalition decision noted, the Commission is not required
to undertake a cost-of-service or ratemaking approach. The Exchange
believes that, even if it were possible as a matter of economic theory,
cost-based pricing for non-core market data would be so complicated
that it could not be done practically or offer any significant
benefits.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The Exchange believes that cost-based pricing would be
impractical because it would create enormous administrative burdens
for all parties and the Commission, to cost-regulate a large number
of participants and standardize and analyze extraordinary amounts of
information, accounts, and reports. In addition, and as described
below, it is impossible to regulate market data prices in isolation
from prices charged by markets for other services that are joint
products. Cost-based rate regulation would also lead to litigation
and may distort incentives, including those to minimize costs and to
innovate, leading to further waste. Under cost-based pricing, the
Commission would be burdened with determining a fair rate of return,
and the industry could experience frequent rate increases based on
escalating expense levels. Even in industries historically subject
to utility regulation, cost-based ratemaking has been discredited.
As such, the Exchange believes that cost-based ratemaking would be
inappropriate for proprietary market data and inconsistent with
Congress's direction that the Commission use its authority to foster
the development of the national market system, and that market
forces will continue to provide appropriate pricing discipline. See
Appendix C to NYSE's comments to the Commission's 2000 Concept
Release on the Regulation of Market Information Fees and Revenues,
which can be found on the Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov/rules/concept/s72899/buck1.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees are
reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory.

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. An exchange's ability to
price its proprietary market data feed products is constrained by
actual competition for the sale of proprietary market data products,
the joint product nature of exchange platforms, and the existence of
alternatives to the Exchange's proprietary data.
The Existence of Actual Competition
    The market for proprietary data products is currently competitive
and inherently contestable because there is fierce competition for the
inputs necessary for the creation of proprietary data and strict
pricing discipline for the proprietary products themselves. Numerous
exchanges compete with one another for listings and order flow and
sales of market data itself, providing ample opportunities for
entrepreneurs who wish to compete in any or all of those areas,
including producing and distributing their own market data. Proprietary
data products are produced and distributed by each individual exchange,
as well as other entities, in a vigorously competitive market. Indeed,

the U.S. Department of Justice (``DOJ'') (the primary antitrust
regulator) has expressly acknowledged the aggressive actual competition
among exchanges, including for the sale of proprietary market data. In
2011, the DOJ stated that exchanges ``compete head to head to offer
real-time equity data products. These data products include the best
bid and offer of every exchange and information on each equity trade,
including the last sale.'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Press Release, U.S. Department of Justice, Assistant
Attorney General Christine Varney Holds Conference Call Regarding
NASDAQ OMX Group Inc. and IntercontinentalExchange Inc. Abandoning
Their Bid for NYSE Euronext (May 16, 20111), available at http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/atr/speeches/2011/at-speech-110516.html; see
also Complaint in U.S. v. Deutsche Borse AG and NYSE Euronext, Case
No. 11-cv-2280 (DC Dist.) ] 24 (``NYSE and Direct Edge compete head-
to-head . . . in the provision of real-time proprietary equity data
products.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, competitive markets for listings, order flow, executions,
and transaction reports provide pricing discipline for the inputs of
proprietary data products and therefore constrain markets from
overpricing proprietary market data. Broker-dealers send their order
flow and transaction reports to multiple venues, rather than providing
them all to a single venue, which in turn reinforces this competitive
constraint. As a 2010 Commission Concept Release noted, the ``current
market structure can be described as dispersed and complex'' with
``trading volume . . . dispersed among many highly automated trading
centers that compete for order flow in the same stocks'' and ``trading
centers offer[ing] a wide range of services that are designed to
attract different types of market participants with varying trading
needs.'' \17\ More recently, SEC Chair Mary Jo White has noted that
competition for order flow in exchange-listed equities is ``intense''
and divided among many trading venues, including exchanges, more than
40 alternative trading systems, and more than 250 broker-dealers.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Concept Release on Equity Market Structure, Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 61358 (Jan. 14, 2010), 75 FR 3594 (Jan. 21,
2010) (File No. S7-02-10). This Concept Release included data from
the third quarter of 2009 showing that no market center traded more
than 20% of the volume of listed stocks, further evidencing the
dispersal of and competition for trading activity. Id. at 3598. Data
available on ArcaVision show that from June 30, 2013 to June 30,
2014, no exchange traded more than 12% of the volume of listed
stocks by either trade or dollar volume, further evidencing the
continued dispersal of and fierce competition for trading activity.
See https://www.arcavision.com/Arcavision/arcalogin.jsp.
    \18\ Mary Jo White, Enhancing Our Equity Market Structure,
Sandler O'Neill & Partners, L.P. Global Exchange and Brokerage
Conference (June 5, 2014) (available on the Commission Web site),
citing Tuttle, Laura, 2014, ``OTC Trading: Description of Non-ATS
OTC Trading in National Market System Stocks,'' at 7-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If an exchange succeeds in its competition for quotations, order
flow, and trade executions, then it earns trading revenues and
increases the value of its proprietary market data products because
they will contain greater quote and trade information. Conversely, if
an exchange is less successful in attracting quotes, order flow, and
trade executions, then its market data products may be less desirable
to customers using them in support of order routing and trading
decisions in light of the diminished content; data products offered by
competing venues may become correspondingly more attractive. Thus,
competition for quotations, order flow, and trade executions puts
significant pressure on an exchange to maintain both execution and data
fees at reasonable levels.
    In addition, in the case of products that are also redistributed
through market data vendors, such as Bloomberg and Thompson Reuters,
the vendors themselves provide additional price discipline for
proprietary data products because they control the primary means of
access to certain end users. These vendors impose price discipline
based upon their business models. For example, vendors that assess a
surcharge on data they sell are able to refuse to offer proprietary
products that their end users do not or will not purchase in sufficient
numbers. Vendors will not elect to make available NYSE Arca Integrated
Feed unless their customers request it, and customers will not elect to
pay the proposed fees unless NYSE Arca Integrated Feed can provide
value by sufficiently increasing revenues or reducing costs in the
customer's business in a manner that will offset the fees. All of these
factors operate as constraints on pricing proprietary data products.
Joint Product Nature of Exchange Platform
    Transaction execution and proprietary data products are
complementary in that market data is both an input and a byproduct of
the execution service. In fact, proprietary market data and trade
executions are a paradigmatic example of joint products with joint
costs. The decision of whether and on which platform to post an order
will depend on the attributes of the platforms where the order can be
posted, including the execution fees, data availability and quality,
and price and distribution of data products. Without a platform to post
quotations, receive orders, and execute trades, exchange data products
would not exist.
    The costs of producing market data include not only the costs of
the data distribution infrastructure, but also the costs of designing,
maintaining, and operating the exchange's platform for posting quotes,
accepting orders, and executing transactions and the cost of regulating
the exchange to ensure its fair operation and maintain investor
confidence. The total return that a trading platform earns reflects the
revenues it receives from both products and the joint costs it incurs.
    Moreover, an exchange's broker-dealer customers generally view the
costs of transaction executions and market data as a unified cost of
doing business with the exchange. A broker-dealer will only choose to
direct orders to an exchange if the revenue from the transaction
exceeds its cost, including the cost of any market data that the
broker-dealer chooses to buy in support of its order routing and
trading decisions. If the costs of the transaction are not offset by
its value, then the broker-dealer may choose instead not to purchase
the product and trade away from that exchange. There is substantial
evidence of the strong correlation between order flow and market data
purchases. For example, in November 2014 more than 80% of the
transaction volume on each of NYSE Arca and NYSE Arca's affiliates New
York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'') and NYSE MKT, LLC (``NYSE MKT'') was
executed by market participants that purchased one or more proprietary
market data products (the 20 firms were not the same for each market).
A supra-competitive increase in the fees for either executions or
market data would create a risk of reducing an exchange's revenues from
both products.
    Other market participants have noted that proprietary market data
and trade executions are joint products of a joint platform and have
common costs.\19\ The Exchange agrees with and adopts those discussions
and the arguments therein. The Exchange also notes that the economics
literature confirms that there is no way to allocate common costs

between joint products that would shed any light on competitive or
efficient pricing.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72153 (May 12,
2014), 79 FR 28575, 28578 n.15 (May 16, 2014) (SR-NASDAQ-2014-045)
(``[A]ll of the exchange's costs are incurred for the unified
purposes of attracting order flow, executing and/or routing orders,
and generating and selling data about market activity. The total
return that an exchange earns reflects the revenues it receives from
the joint products and the total costs of the joint products.'').
See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62907 (Sept. 14, 2010),
75 FR 57314, 57317 (Sept. 20, 2010) (SR-NASDAQ-2010-110), and
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62908 (Sept. 14, 2010), 75 FR
57321, 57324 (Sept. 20, 2010) (SR-NASDAQ-2010-111).
    \20\ See generally Mark Hirschey, Fundamentals of Managerial
Economics, at 600 (2009) (``It is important to note, however, that
although it is possible to determine the separate marginal costs of
goods produced in variable proportions, it is impossible to
determine their individual average costs. This is because common
costs are expenses necessary for manufacture of a joint product.
Common costs of production--raw material and equipment costs,
management expenses, and other overhead--cannot be allocated to each
individual by-product on any economically sound basis. . . . Any
allocation of common costs is wrong and arbitrary.''). This is not
new economic theory. See, e.g., F.W. Taussig, ``A Contribution to
the Theory of Railway Rates,'' Quarterly Journal of Economics V(4)
438, 465 (July 1891) (``Yet, surely, the division is purely
arbitrary. These items of cost, in fact, are jointly incurred for
both sorts of traffic; and I cannot share the hope entertained by
the statistician of the Commission, Professor Henry C. Adams, that
we shall ever reach a mode of apportionment that will lead to
trustworthy results.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Analyzing the cost of market data product production and
distribution in isolation from the cost of all of the inputs supporting
the creation of market data and market data products will inevitably
underestimate the cost of the data and data products because it is
impossible to obtain the data inputs to create market data products
without a fast, technologically robust, and well-regulated execution
system, and system and regulatory costs affect the price of both
obtaining the market data itself and creating and distributing market
data products. It would be equally misleading, however, to attribute
all of an exchange's costs to the market data portion of an exchange's
joint products. Rather, all of an exchange's costs are incurred for the
unified purposes of attracting order flow, executing and/or routing
orders, and generating and selling data about market activity. The
total return that an exchange earns reflects the revenues it receives
from the joint products and the total costs of the joint products.
    As noted above, the level of competition and contestability in the
market is evident in the numerous alternative venues that compete for
order flow, including 12 equities self-regulatory organization
(``SRO'') markets, as well as various forms of ATSs, including dark
pools and electronic communication networks (``ECNs''), and
internalizing broker-dealers. SRO markets compete to attract order flow
and produce transaction reports via trade executions, and two FINRA-
regulated Trade Reporting Facilities compete to attract transaction
reports from the non-SRO venues.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ FINRA's Alternative Display Facility also receives over-
the-counter trade reports that it sends to CTA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Competition among trading platforms can be expected to constrain
the aggregate return that each platform earns from the sale of its
joint products, but different trading platforms may choose from a range
of possible, and equally reasonable, pricing strategies as the means of
recovering total costs. For example, some platforms may choose to pay
rebates to attract orders, charge relatively low prices for market data
products (or provide market data products free of charge), and charge
relatively high prices for accessing posted liquidity. Other platforms
may choose a strategy of paying lower rebates (or no rebates) to
attract orders, setting relatively high prices for market data
products, and setting relatively low prices for accessing posted
liquidity. For example, BATS and Direct Edge, which previously operated
as ATSs and obtained exchange status in 2008 and 2010, respectively,
have provided certain market data at no charge on their Web sites in
order to attract more order flow, and use revenue rebates from
resulting additional executions to maintain low execution charges for
their users.\22\ Similarly, LavaFlow ECN provides market data to its
subscribers at no charge.\23\ In this environment, there is no economic
basis for regulating maximum prices for one of the joint products in an
industry in which suppliers face competitive constraints with regard to
the joint offering.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ This is simply a securities market-specific example of the
well-established principle that in certain circumstances more sales
at lower margins can be more profitable than fewer sales at higher
margins; this example is additional evidence that market data is an
inherent part of a market's joint platform.
    \23\ See ``LavaFlow--ADF Migration,'' available at https://www.lavatrading.com/news/pdf/LavaFlow_ADF_Migration.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Existence of Alternatives
    The large number of SROs, ATSs, and internalizing broker-dealers
that currently produce proprietary data or are currently capable of
producing it provides further pricing discipline for proprietary data
products. Each SRO, ATS, and broker-dealer is currently permitted to
produce and sell proprietary data products, and many currently do or
have announced plans to do so, including but not limited to the
Exchange, NYSE, NYSE MKT, NASDAQ OMX, BATS, and Direct Edge.
    The fact that proprietary data from ATSs, internalizing broker-
dealers, and vendors can bypass SROs is significant in two respects.
First, non-SROs can compete directly with SROs for the production and
sale of proprietary data products. By way of example, BATS and NYSE
Arca both published proprietary data on the Internet before registering
as exchanges. Second, because a single order or transaction report can
appear in an SRO proprietary product, a non-SRO proprietary product, or
both, the amount of data available via proprietary products is greater
in size than the actual number of orders and transaction reports that
exist in the marketplace. With respect to NYSE Arca Integrated Feed,
competitors offer similar products.\24\ Because market data users can
find suitable substitutes for most proprietary market data products, a
market that overprices its market data products stands a high risk that
users may substitute another source of market data information for its
own.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See supra note 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Those competitive pressures imposed by available alternatives are
evident in the Exchange's proposed pricing.
    In addition to the competition and price discipline described
above, the market for proprietary data products is also highly
contestable because market entry is rapid and inexpensive. The history
of electronic trading is replete with examples of entrants that swiftly
grew into some of the largest electronic trading platforms and
proprietary data producers: Archipelago, Bloomberg Tradebook, Island,
RediBook, Attain, TrackECN, BATS Trading and Direct Edge. As noted
above, BATS launched as an ATS in 2006 and became an exchange in 2008,
while Direct Edge began operations in 2007 and obtained exchange status
in 2010. As noted above, LavaFlow ECN provides market data to its
subscribers at no charge.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See supra note 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In setting the proposed fees, the Exchange considered the
competitiveness of the market for proprietary data and all of the
implications of that competition. The Exchange believes that it has
considered all relevant factors and has not considered irrelevant
factors in order to establish fair, reasonable, and not unreasonably
discriminatory fees and an equitable allocation of fees among all
users. The existence of numerous alternatives to the Exchange's
products, including proprietary data from other sources, ensures that
the Exchange cannot set unreasonable fees, or fees that are
unreasonably discriminatory, when vendors and subscribers can elect
these alternatives or choose not to purchase a specific proprietary
data product if the attendant fees are not justified by the returns
that any particular vendor or data recipient would achieve through the
purchase.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \26\ and paragraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\27\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \27\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-2014-147 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-2014-147. 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 NYSE Arca. 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-2014-147 and should
be submitted on or before February 2, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-00212 Filed 1-9-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 26 (Tuesday, February 8, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7175-7176]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02525]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL 9531-01-R1]

Notice of Availability of Draft NPDES Medium Wastewater Treatment
Facilities General Permit for Massachusetts

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability of draft NPDES general permit MAG590000.

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

SUMMARY: The Director of the Water Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency--Region 1 (EPA), is providing a Notice of
Availability for the Draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Medium Wastewater Treatment Facilities General Permit
(Medium WWTF GP) for discharges to certain waters of the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts. This Draft NPDES Medium WWTF GP (``Draft General
Permit'') establishes effluent limitations and requirements, effluent
and ambient monitoring requirements, reporting requirements, and
standard conditions for 44 eligible facilities that are currently
covered by individual NPDES permits (see Attachment E of the Draft
General Permit for a list of eligible WWTFs). The Draft General Permit
is available on EPA Region 1's website at https://www.epa.gov/npdes-permits/region-1-draft-medium-wastewater-treatment-facilities-general-permit-massachusetts. The Fact Sheet for the Draft General Permit sets
forth principal facts and the significant factual, legal,
methodological, and policy questions considered in the development of
the Draft General Permit and is also available at this website.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 11, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the Draft General Permit may be mailed
to U.S. EPA Region 1, Water Division, Attn: Michele Duspiva, 5 Post
Office Square, Suite 100, Mail Code 06-4, Boston, Massachusetts 02109-
3912, or sent via email to: [email protected]. Due to the COVID-
19 National Emergency, if comments are submitted in hard copy form,
please also email a copy to the EPA contact above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Additional information concerning the
Draft General Permit may be obtained from Michele Duspiva, U.S. EPA
Region 1, Water Division, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Mail Code
06-4, Boston, MA 02109-3912; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected]. Following U.S. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) and U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) guidance
and specific state guidelines impacting our regional offices, EPA's
workforce has been directed to telework to help prevent transmission of
the coronavirus. While in this workforce telework status, there are
practical limitations on the ability of Agency personnel to allow the
public to review the administrative record in person at the EPA Boston
office. However, any electronically available documents that are part
of the administrative record can be requested from the EPA contact
above.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Public Comment Information: Interested persons may submit written
comments on the Draft General Permit to EPA Region 1 at the address
listed above. In reaching a final decision on this Draft General
Permit, the Regional Administrator will respond to all significant
comments and make responses available to the public on EPA Region 1's
website. All comments must be postmarked or delivered by the close of
the public comment period.
    General Information: The Draft General Permit includes effluent
limitations and requirements for eligible facilities based on
technology and/or water quality considerations of the unique discharges
from these facilities. The effluent limits established in the Draft
General Permit ensure that the surface water quality standards of the
receiving water(s) will be attained and/or maintained.
    Obtaining Authorization: To obtain coverage under the General
Permit, facilities meeting the eligibility

requirements outlined in Part I of this General Permit may submit a
notice of intent (NOI) in accordance with Part IV of this General
Permit and 40 CFR 122.28(b)(2)(i) & (ii). The contents of the NOI shall
include at a minimum, the legal name and address of the owner or
operator, the facility name and address, type of facility or
discharges, the receiving stream(s) and be signed by the operator in
accordance with the signatory requirements of 40 CFR 122.22.
Alternately, based on 40 CFR 122.28(b)(2)(vi), the Director may notify
a discharger that it is covered by a general permit, even if the
discharger has not submitted an NOI to be covered. EPA has determined
that the facilities identified in Attachment E of the Draft General
Permit all meet the eligibility requirements for coverage under the
Draft General Permit and may be authorized to discharge under the
General Permit by this type of notification.
    Other Legal Requirements: Endangered Species Act (ESA): In
accordance with the ESA, EPA has updated the provisions and necessary
actions and documentation related to potential impacts to endangered
species from WWTFs seeking coverage under the Draft General Permit.
Concurrently with the public notice of the Draft General Permit, EPA
will initiate an informal consultation with the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA
Fisheries) under ESA section 7, through the submission of a letter and
biological assessment (BA) summarizing the results of EPA's assessment
of the potential effects to endangered and threatened species and their
critical habitats under NOAA Fisheries jurisdiction as a result of
EPA's issuance of the Draft General Permit. In this document, EPA has
made a preliminary determination that the proposed issuance of the
Draft General Permit is not likely to adversely affect the shortnose
sturgeon, Atlantic sturgeon, or designated critical habitat for
Atlantic sturgeon, as well as coastal protected whales and sea turtles.
EPA will request that NOAA Fisheries review this submittal and inform
EPA whether it concurs with this preliminary finding.
    In addition, EPA has concluded that the Medium WWTF GP is
consistent with activities analyzed in the USFWS January 5, 2016,
Programmatic Biological Opinion (PBO) regarding the threatened northern
long-eared bat.
    Essential Fish Habitat (EFH): Under the 1996 Amendments (Pub. L.
104-267) to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. (1998)), EPA is required to consult with
NOAA Fisheries if EPA's actions or proposed actions that it funds,
permits or undertakes ``may adversely impact any essential fish
habitat.'' 16 U.S.C. 1855(b). EPA has determined that the permit action
may adversely affect the EFH of designated species. The Draft General
Permit has been conditioned to minimize any impacts that reduce the
quality and/or quantity of EFH. Additional mitigation is not warranted
under Section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Concurrent with
the public notice of the Draft General Permit, EPA will initiate
consultation with NOAA Fisheries by providing this determination for
their review.
    National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA): Facilities which
adversely affect properties listed or eligible for listing in the
National Registry of Historic Places under the NHPA are not authorized
to discharge under the Draft General Permit. Based on the nature and
location of the discharges, EPA has determined that all facilities
eligible for authorization under the Draft General Permit do not have
the potential to affect a property that is either listed or eligible
for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.
    Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA): The CZMA, l6 U.S.C. 145l et
seq., and its implementing regulations (15 CFR part 930) require a
determination that any federally licensed activity affecting the
coastal zone with an approved Coastal Zone Management Program (CZMP) is
consistent with the CZMA. Concurrent with the public notice of the
Draft General Permit, EPA will request that the Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs, MA CZM, provide a consistency concurrence that
the proposed Draft General Permit is consistent with the MA CZMPs.
    Authority: This action is being taken under the Clean Water Act, 33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.

Deborah Szaro,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2022-02525 Filed 2-7-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P