[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 46 (Wednesday, March 9, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12535-12540]
[FR Doc No: 2016-05184]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77289; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2016-31]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Establishing Fees
for the NYSE Arca Order Imbalances Data Feed

March 3, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on February 22, 2016, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE Arca'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to establish fees for the NYSE Arca Order
Imbalances data feed (``Order Imbalances Data Feed''). The proposed
rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at
the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to establish the fees for the Order
Imbalances Data Feed in the NYSE Arca Equities Proprietary Market Data
Fee Schedule (``Fee Schedule'').\4\ The Exchange proposes to establish
the following fees for the Order Imbalances Data Feed:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The proposed rule change establishing the Order Imbalances
Data Feed was immediately effective on January 13, 2016. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76968 (January 22, 2016), 81 FR
4689 (January 27, 2016) (SR-NYSEArca-2016-10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. Access Fee. For the receipt of access to the Order Imbalances
Data Feed, the Exchange proposes to charge $500 per month. Although the
Exchange charges professional and non-professional user fees for other
proprietary market data products, the Exchange does not intend to
charge such fees for the Order Imbalances Data Feed.
    2. Non-Display Fees. The Exchange proposes to establish non-display
fees for the Order Imbalances Data Feed using the same non-display use
fee structure established for the Exchange's other market data
products.\5\ Non-display use would mean accessing, processing, or
consuming the Order Imbalances Data Feed delivered via direct and/or
Redistributor \6\ data feeds for a purpose other than in support of a
data recipient's display or further internal or external redistribution
(``Non-Display Use''). Non-Display Use would include any trading use,
such as high frequency or algorithmic trading, and would also include
any trading in any asset class, automated order or quote generation
and/or order pegging, price referencing for algorithmic trading or
smart order routing, operations control programs, investment analysis,
order verification, surveillance programs, risk management, compliance,
and portfolio management.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 73011 (September 5,
2014), 79 FR 54315 (September 11, 2014) (SR-NYSEArca-2014-93) and
73619 (November 18, 2014), 79 FR 69902 (November 24, 2014) (SR-
NYSEArca-2014-132).
    \6\ ``Redistributor'' means a vendor or any person that provides
a real-time 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the proposal, for Non-Display Use of the Order Imbalances
Data Feed, there would be three categories of, and fees applicable to,
data recipients. One, two or three categories of Non-Display Use may
apply to a data recipient.
     Under the proposal, the Category 1 Fee would be $500 per
month and

would apply when a data recipient's Non-Display Use of the Order
Imbalances Data Feed is on its own behalf, not on behalf of its
clients.
     Under the proposal, Category 2 Fees would be $500 per
month and would apply to a data recipient's Non-Display Use of the
Order Imbalances Data Feed on behalf of its clients.
     Under the proposal, Category 3 Fees would be $500 per
month and would apply to a data recipient's Non-Display Use of the
Order Imbalances Data Feed for the purpose of internally matching buy
and sell orders within an organization, including matching customer
orders for data recipient's own behalf and/or on behalf of its clients.
This category would apply to Non-Display Use in trading platforms, such
as, but not restricted to, alternative trading systems (``ATSs''),
broker crossing networks, broker crossing systems not filed as ATSs,
dark pools, multilateral trading facilities, exchanges and systematic
internalization systems. Category 3 Fees would be capped at $1,500 per
month for each data recipient for the Order Imbalances Data Feed.
    The description of the three non-display use categories is set
forth in the Fee Schedule in endnote 1 and that endnote would be
referenced in the Order Imbalances Data Feed fees on the Fee Schedule.
    Data recipients that receive the Order Imbalances Data Feed for
Non-Display Use would be required to complete and submit a Non-Display
Use Declaration before they would be authorized to receive the feed.\7\
A firm subject to Category 3 Fees would be required to identify each
platform that uses the Order Imbalances Data Feed on a Non-Display Use
basis, such as ATSs and broker crossing systems not registered as ATSs,
as part of the Non-Display Use Declaration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Data recipients are required to complete and submit the Non-
Display Declaration with respect to each market data product on the
Fee Schedule that includes Non-Display Fees. See Securities Exchange
Act Release Nos. 74865 (May 4, 2015), 80 FR 26593 (May 8, 2015) (SR-
NYSEArca-2015-34) (NYSE Arca Integrated Feed) and 74901 (May 7,
2015), 80 FR 27371 (May 13, 2015) (SR-NYSEArca-2015-36) (NYSE Arca
BBO and NYSE Arca Trades).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Non-Display Declaration Late Fee. Data recipients that receive
the Order Imbalances Data Feed for Non-Display Use would be required to
complete and submit a Non-Display Use Declaration before they would be
authorized to receive the feed. Beginning in 2017, the Order Imbalances
Data Feed data recipients would be required to submit, by January 31st
of each year, the Non-Display Use Declaration that applies to all real-
time NYSE Arca market data products that include Non-Display Use
fees.\8\ The Exchange proposes to charge a Non-Display Declaration Late
Fee of $1,000 per month to any data recipient that pays an Access Fee
for the Order Imbalances Data Feed that has failed to complete and
submit a Non-Display Use Declaration. Specifically, with respect to the
Non-Display Use Declaration due by January 31st of each year beginning
in 2017, the Non-Display Declaration Late Fee would apply to data
recipients that fail to complete and submit the Non-Display Use
Declaration by the January 31st due date, and would apply beginning
February 1st and for each month thereafter until the data recipient has
completed and submitted the annual Non-Display Use Declaration. The
Exchange also proposes to apply current endnote 2 on the Fee Schedule
to the Non-Display Declaration Late Fee for the Order Imbalances Data
Feed. Endnote 2 to the Fee Schedule also makes it clear that the Non-
Display Declaration Late Fee applies to the Order Imbalances Data Feed
beginning February 1st of 2017 and each year with respect to the Non-
Display Use Declaration due by January 31st each year.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Id.
    \9\ The second sentence of endnote 2 to the Fee Schedule refers
to a late fee for the Non-Display Use Declarations due September 1,
2014 that have not been submitted by June 30, 2015. This sentence is
not applicable to the Order Imbalances Data Feed because the Order
Imbalances Data Feed was not available as of the September 1, 2014
due date and because data recipients of the Order Imbalances Data
Feed will have to complete and submit a Non-Display Declaration
before they can receive the feed. The Exchange proposes to modify
the second sentence so that it applies only to NYSE ArcaBook, NYSE
Arca BBO, NYSE Arca Trades and NYSE Arca Integrated Feed and not to
the Order Imbalances Data Feed. The Exchange proposes to add a
fourth sentence so that it is clear that it applies to all market
data products, including the Order Imbalances Data Feed, to which
Non-Display Use fees apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, if a data recipient's use of the Order Imbalances Data
Feed changes at any time after the data recipient submits a Non-Display
Use Declaration, the data recipient must inform the Exchange of the
change by completing and submitting at the time of the change an
updated declaration reflecting the change of use.
    4. Multiple Data Feed Fee. The Exchange proposes to establish a
monthly fee, the ``Multiple Data Feed Fee,'' that would apply to data
recipients that take a data feed for a market data product in more than
two locations. Data recipients taking the Order Imbalance Data Feed in
more than two locations would be charged $200 per additional location
per month. No new reporting would be required.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Data vendors currently report a unique Vendor Account
Number for each location at which they provide a data feed to a data
recipient. The Exchange considers each Vendor Account Number a
location. For example, if a data recipient has five Vendor Account
Numbers, representing five locations, for the receipt of the Order
Imbalance Data Feed product, that data recipient will pay the
Multiple Data Feed fee with respect to three of the five locations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other Changes to the Fee Schedule
    Non-Display Use fees for NYSE ArcaBook include the Non-Display Use
of NYSE Arca BBO and NYSE Arca Order Imbalances for customers paying
NYSE ArcaBook non-display fees that also pay access fees for NYSE Arca
BBO and NYSE Arca Order Imbalances. The Exchange proposes to describe
this application of the Non-Display Use fees in note 1 to the Fee
Schedule.\11\ Additionally, Non-Display Use fees for NYSE Arca
Integrated Feed include the Non-Display Use of NYSE ArcaBook, NYSE Arca
BBO, NYSE Arca Trades and NYSE Arca Order Imbalances for customer
paying NYSE Arca Integrated Feed non-display fees that also pay access
fees for NYSE ArcaBook, NYSE Arca BBO, NYSE Arca Trades and NYSE Arca
Order Imbalances. The Exchange proposes to describe this application of
the Non-Display Use fees with an amendment to note 1 to the Fee
Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The Exchange added a similar note, Note 1(b), to the Fee
Schedule in connection with the addition of fees for the NYSE Arca
Integrated Feed. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76914
(January 14, 2016), 81 FR 3484 (January 21, 2016) (SR-NYSEArca-2016-
03).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that the proposed fees are otherwise consistent
with the fee structures for other market data products offered by the
Exchange,\12\ as well as the fees for similar market data products
offered by the Exchange's affiliates.\13\ Other than the Exchange's
affiliates, the Exchange has not identified any other exchanges that
offer

a standalone order imbalance market data product.\14\ The proposed fees
reflect the value of this proprietary data to investors in making
informed trading and order routing decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For example, for NYSE ArcaBook, which includes depth of
book, the Order Imbalances Data Feed, and other data, the Exchange
charges an access fee of $2,000 per month, a professional user fee
of $40 per month, and a non-professional user fee that ranges
between $3 and $10 per month (capped at $40,000 per month). NYSE
ArcaBook will continue to include the Order Imbalances Data Feed at
no additional charge to NYSE ArcaBook customers.
    \13\ NYSE MKT LLC (``NYSE MKT'') also currently charges a $500
per month non-display fee for categories 1, 2 and 3. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 72020 (September 9, 2014), 79 FR 55040
(September 15, 2014) (SR-NYSEMKT-2014-72); NYSE MKT also currently
charges a $1,000 per month non-display late fee and $200 per month
multiple data feed fee. See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos.
74884 (May 6, 2015), 80 FR 27212 (May 12, 2015) (SR-NYSEMKT-2015-35)
and 76911 (January 14, 2016), 81 FR 3496 (January 21, 2016) (SR-
NYSEMKT-2016-05), respectively.
    \14\ The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'') offers Net Order
Imbalance Indicator data through its NASDAQ Workstation and NASDAQ
TotalView datafeed. See http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/trader.aspx?id=openclose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\15\ in general, and
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\16\ in particular, in that it
provides an equitable allocation of reasonable fees among its members,
issuers, and other persons using its facilities and is not designed to
permit unfair discrimination among customers, issuers, brokers, or
dealers. The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 11(A) of the Act \17\ in that it is consistent
with (i) fair competition among brokers and dealers, among exchange
markets, and between exchange markets and markets other than exchange
markets; and (ii) the availability to brokers, dealers, and investors
of information with respect to quotations for and transactions in
securities. Furthermore, the proposed rule change is consistent with
Rule 603 of Regulation NMS,\18\ which provides that any national
securities exchange that distributes information with respect to
quotations for or transactions in an NMS stock do so on terms that are
not unreasonably discriminatory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (5).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \18\ See 17 CFR 242.603.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the market-based approach of the Commission. 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 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.' '' \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 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.\20\ In addition, the
existence of alternatives to the Order Imbalances Data Feed, including
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 elect
such alternatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Section 916 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (the ``Dodd-Frank Act'') amended
paragraph (A) of Section 19(b)(3) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3),
to make clear that all exchange fees for market data may be filed by
exchanges on an immediately effective basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the NetCoalition decision noted, the Commission is not required
to undertake a cost-of-service or ratemaking approach.\21\ 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.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ NetCoalition, 615 F.3d at 536.
    \22\ The Exchange believes that cost-based pricing would be
impractical because it would create enormous administrative burdens
for all parties, including 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed fees are reasonable because
they replicate the fee structure of other market data products offered
by the Exchange by including not only an access fee but also non-
display, late declaration, and multiple data feed fees.\23\ The
Exchange believes that these fees are relatively low in light of the
high value of this proprietary data to users in making informed order
routing and trading decisions for all securities traded on the
Exchange, particularly in the Exchange's opening and closing auctions
where a high percentage of daily trading volume occurs.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See supra note 12.
    \24\ See 17 CFR 242.603(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed fees are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because they are consistent with the structure of other market data
fees that charge for access, non-display use and receipt of data in
multiple locations.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See supra note 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The existence of alternatives to the Order Imbalances Data Feed,
including proprietary data from other sources, reasonably ensures that
the Exchange cannot set unreasonable fees, or fees that are
unreasonably discriminatory, when vendors and subscribers can elect
such alternatives.
    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.'' \26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 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, 2011), 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 (D.C. 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.'' \27\ 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.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 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.
    \28\ 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 competing 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 in light of
the diminished content and data products offered by competing venues
may become 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 the Order Imbalances
Data Feed unless their customers request it, and customers will not
elect to pay the proposed fees unless the Order Imbalances Data 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 January 2016, 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 was executed by market
participants that purchased one or more proprietary market data
products. 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.\29\ 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.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 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).
    \30\ 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 alternative trading
systems (``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.
    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 Global Markets (``BATS'') and Direct Edge,
which previously operated as ATSs and obtained exchange status in 2008
and 2010, respectively, provided certain market data at no charge on
their Web sites in order to attract more order flow, and used revenue
rebates from resulting additional executions to maintain low execution
charges for their users.\31\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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,
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. 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.
    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.
    In determining the proposed fees for the Order Imbalances Data
Feed, 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 is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \32\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \33\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \33\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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 under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \34\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-2016-31 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2016-31. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2016-31, and should
be submitted on or before March 30, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\35\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2016-05184 Filed 3-8-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: July 22, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 141)]
[Notices]
[Page 42631-42634]
[DOCID:fr22jy08-93]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58173; File No. SR-OPRA-2008-02]

Options Price Reporting Authority; Notice of Filing of Proposed
Amendment to the Plan for Reporting of Consolidated Options Last Sale
Reports and Quotation Information, as Modified by Amendment No. 1
Thereto, To Amend OPRA's Vendor Agreement and Related Documents and
Adopt a New Policy

July 16, 2008.
    Pursuant to Section 11A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 608 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on May 30, 2008, the Options Price Reporting Authority (``OPRA'')
submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') an
amendment to the Plan for Reporting of Consolidated Options Last Sale
Reports and Quotation Information (``OPRA Plan'').\3\ On July 1, 2008,
OPRA submitted Amendment No. 1 to the proposed Amendment to the OPRA
Plan.\4\ The proposed OPRA Plan amendment, as modified by Amendment No.
1, would modify OPRA's Vendor Agreement in several respects, including
revising OPRA's definition of the term ``Nonprofessional.'' In
connection with the revision of the term ``Nonprofessional,'' the
proposed OPRA Plan amendment would also amend OPRA's ``Electronic Form
of Subscriber Agreement'' and ``Hardcopy Form of Subscriber Agreement''
and adopt a new Policy. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments from interested persons on the proposed OPRA Plan
amendment, as modified by Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \2\ 17 CFR 242.608.
    \3\ The OPRA Plan is a national market system plan approved by
the Commission pursuant to Section 11A of the Act and Rule 608
thereunder (formerly Rule 11Aa3-2). See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 17638 (March 18, 1981), 22 S.E.C. Docket 484 (March 31,
1981). The full text of the OPRA Plan is available at http://
www.opradata.com.
    The OPRA Plan provides for the collection and dissemination of
last sale and quotation information on options that are traded on
the participant exchanges. The seven participants to the OPRA Plan
are the American Stock Exchange LLC, the Boston Stock Exchange,
Inc., the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated, the
International Securities Exchange, LLC, the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC,
the NYSE Arca, Inc., and the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.
    \4\ Amendment No. 1 replaced the original filing in its
entirety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Description and Purpose of the Amendment

    The proposed Amendment to OPRA's Vendor Agreement has several
purposes.

A. Section 5: Definition of ``Nonprofessional''; Revision of Forms of
Subscriber Agreement; and New Policy

    OPRA proposes to revise its definition of the term
``Nonprofessional.'' The definition currently appears in Section 5 of
OPRA's Vendor Agreement and in OPRA's ``Electronic Form of Subscriber
Agreement'' and ``Hardcopy Form of Subscriber Agreement.'' These two

forms are Attachments B-1 and B-2 to OPRA's form of Vendor
Agreement.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ OPRA's form of Vendor Agreement and its forms of Subscriber
Agreements are available on OPRA's Web site, http://
www.opradata.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A person may become an OPRA ``Subscriber'' in one of two ways. The
first way is that the person may sign a ``Professional Subscriber
Agreement'' with the OPRA exchanges. In this case, the person pays fees
directly to OPRA on the basis of the number of the person's ``devices''
and/or ``UserIDs.''
    The second way is that the person may enter into a ``Subscriber
Agreement,'' not with the OPRA exchanges, but with an OPRA ``Vendor''--
an entity that has entered into a Vendor Agreement with the OPRA
exchanges that authorizes the entity to redistribute OPRA Data to third
persons. In this case, OPRA collects ``usage-based'' fees from the
Vendor, which are often passed through to the Subscriber by the Vendor.
If a person qualifies as a ``Nonprofessional Subscriber,'' OPRA caps
the fee that it charges the Vendor, and the fees that the Subscriber is
required to pay to the Vendor may be less than they would be if the
Subscriber is classified as a ``Professional Subscriber.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ More specifically, if a person qualifies as a
``Nonprofessional'' and signs a Subscriber Agreement with a Vendor,
OPRA either caps the ``usage-based fees'' that it charges the Vendor
for the person's access to OPRA Data at the level specified in its
Fee Schedule--currently $1.00/month--or, at the Vendor's option,
simply charges the Vendor $1.00/month for the person's access to
OPRA Data. If a person does not qualify as a ``Nonprofessional,''
the person may still sign a Subscriber Agreement with a Vendor, but
OPRA either caps the ``usage-based fees'' that it charges the Vendor
for the person's access to OPRA Data at the Professional Subscriber
``per device'' rate (currently $21.00/month) or, at the Vendor's
option, simply charges the Vendor the Professional Subscriber ``per
device'' rate for the person's access to OPRA Data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OPRA's current definition of the term ``Nonprofessional'' specifies
that a person must be an ``individual'' in order to qualify as a
Nonprofessional. OPRA has concluded that this aspect of the definition
should be revised to state that a ``legal person'' may qualify as a
Nonprofessional if the legal person is either an individual (a
``natural person'') or a ``qualifying trust.'' The term ``qualifying
trust'' is proposed to be defined essentially to refer to a trust
established for the benefit of one or more members of the trustee's
immediate family. OPRA is proposing changes to Section 5 of its form of
Vendor Agreement and in its Electronic Form of Subscriber Agreement and
Hardcopy Form of Subscriber Agreement to implement the revised
definition.
    The Addendum for Nonprofessionals that is attached to OPRA's form
of Subscriber Agreement also currently states that a person must use
OPRA Data ``solely in connection with [the person's] individual
personal investment activities'' in order to qualify as a
Nonprofessional. OPRA has concluded that this language should be
revised to clarify that a natural person may qualify as a
Nonprofessional if the person uses OPRA Data for the person's own
benefit and for the benefit of other members of the person's immediate
family and qualifying trusts of which the person is the trustee or
custodian, and to include a parallel statement with respect to
qualifying trusts to the effect that a qualifying trust may constitute
a Nonprofessional only if the trust uses OPRA Data only for the benefit
of the trust.
    OPRA is also proposing to adopt a new policy entitled ``Policy with
Respect to Definition of the Term `Nonprofessional'.'' The purpose of
this document is to facilitate implementation of the revised definition
of the term ``Nonprofessional'' as described below under the heading
``Manner of Implementation of Amendment.''
    OPRA believes that the changes that it is proposing in its
definition of the term ``Nonprofessional'' will add clarity to the
definition and better align the language of the definition with the
understanding of the definition on the part of Vendors and Subscribers
who are affected by the definition.

B. Section 14: Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements

    OPRA is proposing to change four provisions in Section 14 of the
Vendor Agreement, which describes the reports and recordkeeping that
OPRA requires of Vendors.
    Paragraph 14(a) would be revised for several purposes. The current
language of the paragraph could be misunderstood as requiring a Vendor
to provide either a complete list of all Subscribers, including
Subscribers that have entered into Subscriber Agreements with the
Vendor, or changes to the previous version of the list, on a monthly
basis. The revised language makes clear that OPRA requires only summary
information on a monthly basis with respect to Subscribers that have
entered into Subscriber Agreements with the Vendor. The current
language of the paragraph requires that a Vendor report monthly with
respect to ``the number and type of devices'' of each Professional
Subscriber that has entered into a Professional Subscriber Agreement
with OPRA. OPRA has for many years permitted Professional Subscribers
to pay fees on the basis of the number of ``devices'' or ``User IDs''
on which they receive OPRA Data,\7\ and accordingly the revised
language requires that a Vendor report monthly with respect to ``the
number of devices and/or User IDs'' of each such Professional
Subscriber that receives OPRA Data on Vendor controlled services. The
revised language also states specifically that a Vendor's reports to
OPRA pursuant to paragraph 14(a) are to be provided electronically in a
form reasonably satisfactory to OPRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ This is reflected in footnote 2 of OPRA's Fee Schedule and
in its ``Policies with respect to Device Based Fees,'' both of which
are available on OPRA's Web site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of the changes in the first sentence of paragraph 14(b)
is to preserve the current meaning of the sentence in juxtaposition to
revised paragraph 14(a). In addition to the reports called for by
paragraph 14(a) (reports at least monthly), OPRA has the right to
require more complete reports pursuant to paragraph 14(b). These
reports are submitted no more frequently than quarterly. The revised
first sentence of paragraph 14(b) continues to state that, whereas
reports made pursuant to paragraph 14(a) may contain summary
information with respect to Subscribers that have entered into
Subscriber Agreements with the Vendor, reports made pursuant to
paragraph 14(b) must include all information in the Vendor's list of
Subscribers described in the first sentence of paragraph 14(a).
    The change in clause 14(c)(3) would revise the language to make
clear that a Vendor is not required to retain hardcopy originals of
signed hardcopy Subscriber Agreements and may instead retain copies,
either in hardcopy form or in electronic form, provided that copies
that are maintained electronically are maintained in a ``non-
rewriteable, non-eraseable format.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ This phrase is used in Rule 17a-4(f)(2)(ii)(A), 17 CFR Sec.
240.17a-4(f)(2)(ii)(A). Rule 17a-4(f) describes the circumstances in
which brokers and dealers may retain certain records in electronic
form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The changes in new paragraph 14(d) (replacing the final sentence of
paragraph 14(c)) refine the statement of OPRA's record retention
requirements to shorten OPRA's record retention requirement and to make
a distinction between two types of records. The current language
requires a Vendor to retain all records ``for at least six years after
the date Vendor discontinues furnishing OPRA Data to such persons
[i.e., Subscribers].'' That phrase is capable of being misunderstood to
say that a Vendor must retain its records

with respect to all Subscribers for at least six years after it ceases
furnishing OPRA Data to any Subscriber. As revised, the language
requires a Vendor to retain records with respect to its agreements with
a Subscriber (these are records described in clauses 14(c)(1), (2) and
(3)) for at least three years after it discontinues furnishing OPRA
Data to that Subscriber, and requires a Vendor to retain records with
respect to the actual use of OPRA Data (these are records described in
paragraph 14(a) and clause 14(c)(4)) for at least three years after the
records are created. The revised language is placed in a new paragraph
14(d), rather than being left in paragraph 14(c), to confirm that these
record retention requirements apply to the Vendor's records with
respect to Subscribers that are described in paragraph 14(a) as well as
records described in paragraph 14(c).

C. Section 19: Provisions for Modifying the Vendor Agreement

    Paragraph 19(a) of the Vendor Agreement currently provides that,
``[u]pon compliance with any applicable requirements of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (including any affirmative action by the SEC, if
required),'' OPRA may modify the terms of the Vendor Agreement upon not
less than 30 days notice to Vendor, and then states that: ``Within
thirty (30) days of its receipt of any notice of modifications, Vendor
shall notify OPRA in writing whether Vendor consents to the
modifications. If Vendor does not consent to the modifications within
thirty (30) days of its receipt of the notice, this Agreement shall
immediately terminate.'' This language could be read to say that, if
OPRA wishes to use paragraph 19(a) to implement a change in the Vendor
Agreement after complying with the applicable requirements of the Act,
a Vendor must affirmatively ``opt in'' to the change or its Vendor
Agreement will be terminated. OPRA currently has over one hundred and
eighty Vendors. It is not realistic to expect all of them to sign and
return a written consent to a modification of the Vendor Agreement
within thirty days of receipt, and not in the interests of either OPRA
or a Vendor to permit the Vendor's Vendor Agreement to terminate
automatically if the Vendor fails to meet the thirty-day deadline. To
avoid this result, OPRA is proposing to change this language so that it
clearly states that, if OPRA wishes to use paragraph 19(a) to implement
a change in the Vendor Agreement after complying with the applicable
requirements of the Act, OPRA must furnish written notice of the change
to the Vendor, following which the Vendor need not ``opt in'' to the
change in order to maintain its status as a Vendor, but may ``opt out''
of the change by terminating its Vendor Agreement if it is unwilling to
accept the change. The revised paragraph makes clear that, if a Vendor
timely gives notice of termination of its Vendor Agreement following
its receipt of notice of a modification of the Vendor Agreement, the
unmodified Vendor Agreement will constitute the agreement between the
Vendor and OPRA until the effective date of the Vendor's termination.
    OPRA also proposes to delete current paragraphs 19(b) and 19(c) of
the Vendor Agreement. Current paragraph 19(b) specifically addresses
the possibility that OPRA might need to modify the provisions of the
Vendor Agreement that relate to the Electronic Subscriber Agreement.
Current paragraph 19(c) requires that all modifications to the Vendor
Agreement other than those described in paragraph 19(a) (modifications
subject to the procedure described in this filing) and 19(b)
(modifications relating to Electronic Subscriber Agreements) must be
signed by the Vendor. OPRA believes that it is no longer necessary to
have a paragraph specifically with respect to modifications of the
Electronic Subscriber Agreement and that it is consistent with the
changes in paragraph 19(a) described in this filing to delete paragraph
19(c).

D. Section 21: ``Assignment'' Provision

    Section 21 of the Vendor Agreement currently states that the Vendor
may not assign the Vendor Agreement without the consent of OPRA
``except to a successor corporation upon merger or consolidation of
Vendor, or to a corporation acquiring all or substantially all of the
property, assets and business of Vendor.'' OPRA is proposing to modify
that language to accommodate other business entities in addition to
corporations.
    The text of the proposed amendment to the OPRA Plan is available at
OPRA, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and http://opradata.com.

II. Implementation of the OPRA Plan Amendment

    Upon approval by the Commission pursuant to Section 11A of the Act
\9\ and paragraph (b)(1) of Rule 608 thereunder,\10\ OPRA will
implement a new standard form of Vendor Agreement incorporating the
amendments proposed in this filing, and OPRA will require its current
population of Vendors to sign either an Amendment in the form set forth
as Exhibit I to its filing or the new standard form of Vendor
Agreement. After a Vendor has signed either an Amendment or a new form
of Agreement, OPRA will permit the Vendor to use the revised forms of
Electronic Form of Subscriber Agreement and Hardcopy Form of Subscriber
Agreement set forth in its filing as Exhibits III and IV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \10\ 17 CFR 242.608(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OPRA is not proposing to require that OPRA Vendors replace the
agreements that they currently have in place with Nonprofessional
Subscribers. Instead, OPRA proposes to state in a new Policy, the form
of which is attached as Exhibit V to its filing, that OPRA will
interpret all Subscriber Agreements between Vendors and Nonprofessional
Subscribers, including Subscriber Agreements that were entered into
prior to the date on which this filing becomes effective, as if their
language read as shown in Exhibits III and IV, respectively, to this
filing. Following approval of this filing, OPRA intends to post the new
Policy on its Web site and to send a copy of the new Policy to all
current Vendors with the next monthly invoices that will be sent out by
OPRA. The changes that OPRA is proposing may enable a person who is
currently classified as a Professional to qualify as a Nonprofessional,
but will not cause any person who currently qualifies to be a
Nonprofessional to cease to be qualified to be a Nonprofessional. OPRA
therefore believes that the changes will not work to the disadvantage
of any OPRA Vendor or Subscriber. For this reason, it should not be
necessary to require that any Subscriber enter into a new Agreement in
order to have the benefit of the changes.

III. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed OPRA
Plan amendment 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 No. SR-OPRA-2008-02 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-OPRA-2008-02. 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 plan amendment that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed plan amendment 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 OPRA. 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-OPRA-2008-02 and should be
submitted on or before August 12, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(29).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-16750 Filed 7-21-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: February 1, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 21)]
[Notices]
[Page 5390-5391]
[DOCID:fr01fe06-161]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53181; File No. SR-CHX-2005-40]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Relating to a Session Fee Increase for the Regulatory Element of the
Continuing Education Program

January 26, 2006.
    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 December 30, 2005, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (``CHX'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the CHX. The Exchange
has designated this proposal as one establishing or changing a due,
fee, or other charge imposed by CHX under section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of
the Act,\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\ which renders the
proposal 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)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The CHX proposes to amend its Participant Fee Schedule (the ``Fee
Schedule'') to incorporate the session fee for the Regulatory Element
of the continuing education requirements set out in CHX rules. The text
of this proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
http://www.chx.com/rules/proposed_rules.htm, at the CHX, 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 CHX included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received regarding the proposal. The text of
these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV
below. The CHX 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 Changes

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is proposing to incorporate, in its Fee Schedule, the
session fee paid by Exchange participants for the Regulatory Element of
the continuing education program required by CHX Rules. Under Exchange
rules, registered persons associated with CHX participant firms are
required to complete the Regulatory Element of the continuing education
program on the second anniversary of their registration and every three
years after that date, or as otherwise prescribed by the Exchange.\5\
The Regulatory Element is a computer-based education program
administered by the National Association of Securities Dealers
(``NASD'') that is designed to help ensure that registered persons are
kept up-to-date on regulatory, compliance and sales practice matters in
the industry. The Regulatory Element is a component of the Securities
Industry Continuing Education Program (the ``Program''). The Securities
Industry/Regulatory Council on Continuing Education (the ``Council'')
was organized in 1995 to facilitate cooperative industry and regulatory
coordination of the administration and future development of the
Program in keeping with applicable industry regulations and changing
industry needs. Its roles include recommending and helping develop
specific content and questions for the Regulatory Element, defining
minimum core curricula for the Firm Element component of the Program
and developing and updating information about the Program for industry-
wide dissemination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See CHX Article VI, Rule 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange understands that it is the Council's responsibility to
maintain the Program on a revenue neutral basis while maintaining
adequate reserves for unanticipated future expenditures.\6\ In December
2003, the Council voted to reduce the Regulatory Element session fee
from $65 to $60, effective January 1, 2004. Although there was no
change to the fee for 2005, the Council has decided to increase the
Regulatory Element session fee from $60 to $75, effective January 1,
2006, in order to meet costs and maintain an adequate reserve in
2006.\7\ Through this filing, the Exchange proposes to incorporate the
$75 fee into its Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Council currently consists of 20 individuals, including
six representatives of self-regulatory organizations and 14 persons
who are associated with NASD member firms. The Commission and the
North American Securities Administrators Association have liaisons
to the Council. The Exchange does not have a representative serving
on the Council.
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52947 (December 13,
2005), 70 FR 75517 (December 20, 2005) (SR-NASD-2005-132).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes this proposed rule change is consistent with
section 6(b)(4) of the Act \8\ in that it provides for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among its
members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will
impose any burden on competition.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing proposed rule change has been designated as a fee
change pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \9\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(2) thereunder,\10\ because it establishes or changes a due, fee or
other charge imposed by the

Exchange. Accordingly, the proposal will take effect upon filing with
the Commission. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \10\ 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 proposal 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 No. SR-CHX-2005-40 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-9303.
    All submissions should refer to File No. SR-CHX-2005-40. 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. Copies of such
filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the CHX. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File No. SR-CHX-2005-40 and should be submitted on or before February
22, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-1304 Filed 1-31-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 201 (Thursday, October 17, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55570-55571]
[FR Doc No: 2019-22675]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER20-65-000]

TWE Bowman Solar Project, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
TWE Bowman Solar Project, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426,

in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a
motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on
the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is October 30, 2019.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: October 10, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-22675 Filed 10-16-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [ EPA R03 OAR 2006 0151; FRL ]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Maryland; Revised Definition of Volatile Organic Compounds AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action on revisions to the Maryland State Implementation Plan ( SIP) submitted by the Maryland Department of Environment ( MDE). The revisions update the SIP's reference to the EPA definition of volatile organic compounds ( VOC).

EPA is approving these revisions to the State of Maryland's SIP in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act.

DATES: This rule is effective on [ Insert date 60 days after publication in the Federal Register]

without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse written comment by [ Insert date 30 days after publication in the Federal Register]. If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number R03 OAR 2006 0151 by one of the following methods:

A. www. regulations. gov. Follow the on line instructions for submitting comments.

B. E mail: frankford. harold@ epa. gov 2 C. Mail: EPA R03 OAR 2006 0151, Harold A. Frankford, Office of Air Programs,

Mailcode 3AP20, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

D. Hand Delivery: At the previously listed EPA Region III address. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA R03 OAR 2006 0151. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, and may be made available online at www. regulations. gov, including any personal information provided,

unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information ( CBI)

or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www. regulations. gov or e mail. The www. regulations. gov website is an " anonymous access" system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e mail comment directly to EPA without going through www. regulations. gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, 3 and be free of any defects or viruses.

Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the www. regulations. gov index.

Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i. e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.

Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www. regulations. gov orMarch 9, 2006 in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U. S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the Maryland Department of the Environment, 1800 Washington Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, Maryland 21230.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Harold A. Frankford at ( 215) 814 2108, or by e mail at frankford. harold@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Summary of SIP Revisions On October 31, 2005, the State of Maryland submitted a formal revision ( No. 05 05) to its SIP.

The SIP revision consists of a revised reference to the Federal definition of VOC at 40 CFR 51.100( s) which is found at COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>B( 53), Maryland's definition for " volatile organic compounds ( VOC)". These regulatory revisions became effective on September 12,

2005. 4 II. Description of the SIP Revision Maryland has amended COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>B( 53) to update the Federal reference for incorporation of the EPA definition of VOC found at 40 CFR 51.100( s) from the 2002 edition ( the currently SIP approved version) to the 2004 edition of the Code of Federal Regulations ( CFR).

III. Final Action EPA is approving revisions to COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>B( 53) of the Maryland SIP to update the references to the EPA definition of VOC found at 40 CFR 51.100( s) in effect as of 12/ 31/ 2004.

EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comment since the revisions are administrative changes to the state regulations. However, in the " Proposed Rules" section of today's Federal Register, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse comments are filed. This rule will be effective on [ Insert date 60 days from date of publication in the Federal Register] without further notice unless EPA receives adverse comment by [ Insert date 30 days from date of publication in the Federal Register]. If EPA receives adverse comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 5 A. General Requirements Under Executive Order 12866 ( 58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a " significant regulatory action" and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, " Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use" ( 66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act ( 5 U. S. C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule approves pre existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 ( Public Law 104 4). This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 ( 65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 ( 64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).

This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This 6 rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 " Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks" ( 62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards ( VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12( d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 ( 15 U. S. C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 ( 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq.).

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General The Congressional Review Act, 5 U. S. C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U. S. Senate, the U. S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a " major rule" as defined by 5 U. S. C. 804( 2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review Under section 307( b)( 1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by [ insert date 60 days from 7 date of publication of this document in the Federal Register]. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed,

and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action to approve Maryland's revised definition of " volatile organic compound ( VOC)" may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. ( See section 307( b)( 2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds Dated: March 21, 2006 _______________________ William Early, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 8 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52  [ AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U. S. C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart V  Maryland 2. In Section 52.1070, the table in paragraph ( c) is amended by revising the entry for COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>B( 53) to read as follows:

§ 52.1070 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

( c)***

EPA APPROVED REGULATIONS IN THE MARYLAND SIP Code of Maryland administrative regulations ( COMAR) citation Title/ subject State effective date EPA approval date Additional explanation/ citation at 40 CFR § 52.1100 <IP_ADDRESS> General Administrative Provisions * * * * * * *

<IP_ADDRESS>B( 53) Definitions definition of volatile organic compound ( VOC) 9/ 12/ 05 [ Insert Federal Register publication date] [ Insert page number where the document begins] Definition reflects the version of 40 CFR 51.100( s) in effect as of 12/ 31/ 2004.

* * * * * * *

* * * * *


[Federal Register: June 13, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 113)]
[Notices]
[Page 32637]
[DOCID:fr13jn07-55]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-200-026]

Rockies Express Pipeline LLC; Notice of Compliance Filing

June 5, 2007.
    Take notice that on May 31, 2007, Rockies Express Pipeline LLC
(REX) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, the following
tariff sheets, to be effective June 1, 2007:

Twenty-First Revised Sheet No. 22
Tenth Revised Sheet No. 24

    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing 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. Such protests
must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of
the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing a protest
must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons

unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-11349 Filed 6-12-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P