[Federal Register: October 20, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 203)]
[Notices]
[Page 62029-62033]
[DOCID:fr20oc06-101]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54597; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2006-21]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Order Approving
Proposed Rule Change Relating to NYSE Arca Data

October 12, 2006.

I. Introduction

    On May 23, 2006, the NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'' or ``SEC''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to establish fees for the receipt
and use of certain market data that the Exchange makes available. The
proposal was published for comment in the Federal Register on June 9,
2006.\3\ The Commission received four comment letters regarding the
proposal.\4\ On July 25, 2006, and August 25, 2006, the Exchange filed
letters responding to the issues raised in the

comment letters.\5\ This order approves the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53952 (June 7,
2006), 71 FR 33496.
    \4\ See letters from Gregory Babyak, Chair, Market Data
Subcommittee, the Securities Industry Association (``SIA''), and
Christopher Gilkerson, Chair, Technology and Regulation Committee,
SIA, to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, SEC, dated June 30, 2006 (``SIA
Letter I''), and August 18, 2006 (``SIA Letter II''); web comment
from Steven C. Spencer, Esq., dated June 18, 2006 (``Spencer
Letter''); and letter from Markham C. Erickson, Executive Director
and General Counsel, Netcoalition, to the Honorable Christopher Cox,
Chairman, SEC, dated August 9, 2006 (``Netcoalition Letter''). SIA
Letters I and II also provide comments concerning File No. SR-NYSE
Arca-2006-23, NYSE Arca's proposal to establish a pilot program
setting fees for the receipt and use of market data relating to NYSE
Arca's best bids and offers. The Netcoalition Letter's comments also
apply to File Nos. SR-NYSE Arca-2006-23; SR-NASD-2005-056; and SR-
NASD-2006-072.
    \5\ See letters from Janet Angstadt, Acting General Counsel,
NYSE Arca, Inc., to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, SEC, dated July 25,
2006 (``NYSE Arca Response I'') and August 25, 2006 (``NYSE Arca
Response II'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    Through NYSE Arca, LLC, the equities trading facility of NYSE Arca
Equities, Inc., the Exchange makes available on a real-time basis
ArcaBook,\SM\ a compilation of all limit orders resident in the NYSE
Arca limit order book. In addition, the Exchange makes available real-
time information relating to transactions and limit orders in debt
securities that are traded through the Exchange's facilities. The
Exchange makes ArcaBook and the bond transaction and limit order
information (collectively, ``NYSE Arca Data'') available to market data
vendors, broker-dealers, private network providers, and other entities
by means of data feeds. Currently, the Exchange does not charge fees
for the use receipt and use of NYSE Arca Data.
    The Exchange proposes to establish fees for the receipt and use of
NYSE Arca Data. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to establish a $750
per month access fee for access to the Exchange's data feeds that carry
the NYSE Arca Data.
    The Exchange also proposes to establish professional and non-
professional device fees for the NYSE Arca Data.\6\ For professional
subscribers, the Exchange proposes to establish a monthly fee of $15
per device for the receipt of ArcaBook data relating to exchange-traded
funds (``ETFs'') and those equity securities for which reporting is
governed by the CTA Plan (``CTA Plan and ETF Securities'') and a
monthly fee of $15 per device for the receipt of ArcaBook data relating
to those equity securities, excluding ETFs, for which reporting is
governed by the Nasdaq UTP Plan (``Nasdaq UTP Plan Securities'').\7\
For non-professional subscribers, the Exchange proposes to establish a
monthly fee of $5 per device for the receipt of ArcaBook data relating
to CTA Plan and ETF Securities and a monthly fee of $5 per device for
the receipt of ArcaBook data relating to Nasdaq UTP Plan Securities.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In differentiating between professional and non-professional
subscribers, the Exchange proposes to apply the same criteria used
by the Consolidated Tape Association Plan (``CTA Plan'') and the
Consolidated Quotation System Plan (``CQ Plan'') for qualification
as a non-professional subscriber.
    \7\ The ``Nasdaq UTP Plan'' is the Joint Self-Regulatory
Organization Plan Governing the Collection, Consolidation and
Dissemination of Quotation and Transaction Information for Nasdaq-
Listed Securities Traded on Exchanges on an Unlisted Trading
Privileges Basis.
    \8\ There will be no monthly device fees for limit order and
last sale price information relating to debt securities traded
through the Exchange's facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes a maximum monthly payment for device
fees paid by any broker-dealer for non-professional subscribers that
maintain brokerage accounts with the broker-dealer.\9\ For 2006, the
Exchange proposes a $20,000 maximum monthly payment. For the months
falling in a subsequent calendar year, the maximum monthly payment
shall increase (but not decrease) by the percentage increase (if any)
in the annual composite share volume \10\ for the calendar year
preceding that subsequent calendar year, subject to a maximum annual
increase of five percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Professional subscribers may be included in the calculation
of the monthly maximum amount so long as (i) nonprofessional
subscribers comprise no less than 90 percent of the pool of
subscribers that are included in the calculation; (ii) each
professional subscriber that is included in the calculation is not
affiliated with the broker-dealer or any of its affiliates (either
as an officer, partner or employee or otherwise); and (iii) each
such professional subscriber maintains a brokerage account directly
with the broker-dealer (that is, with the broker-dealer rather than
with a correspondent firm of the broker-dealer).
    \10\ ``Composite share volume'' for a calendar year refers to
the aggregate number of shares in all securities that trade over
NYSE Arca facilities for that calendar year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, the Exchange proposes to waive the device fees for ArcaBook
data during the duration of the billable month in which a subscriber
first gains access to the data.

III. Summary of Comments

    The Commission received four comment letters from three commenters
regarding the proposal.\11\ All of the commenters objected to the
proposal. Two commenters argued that the advent of for-profit exchanges
raises significant issues, including the potential for conflicts of
interest between an exchange's self-regulatory obligations and its
obligations to shareholders.\12\ One commenter urged the Commission to
consider significant market data proposals, such as the current
proposal, in the context of its pending review of self-regulatory
organizations (``SROs'').\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See note 4, supra.
    \12\ See SIA Letter I and Netcoalition Letter, supra note 4.
    \13\ See Netcoalition Letter, supra note 4. Specifically, the
commenter urged the Commission to consider these issues in the
context of the Concept Release concerning self-regulation. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50700 (November 18, 2004), 69 FR
71256 (December 8, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two commenters argued that the proposal reflects changes in the
Exchange's policies due to its recent merger with the New York Stock
Exchange, Inc. (``NYSE'').\14\ One commenter stated that the merger
eliminated the Exchange's incentive to compete with the NYSE and
resulted in the Exchange's proposal to implement fees for its market
data.\15\ This commenter argued that all investors should be allowed to
view market data free of charge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See SIA Letter I and Spencer Letter, supra note 4.
    \15\ See Spencer Letter, supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another commenter noted that ``[i]n the aftermath of a merger
promising the new owners of the [E]xchange new revenue opportunities,
the [E]xchange has fundamentally altered the role and distribution of,
and changed the rules regarding access to, [the Exchange's] market
data.'' \16\ This commenter noted that the Exchange currently provides
its data for free and that the Exchange's post-merger decision to
charge fees for its data and require vendors to enter into contracts
governing the distribution of its data diminish market transparency and
impede competition, which the commenter asserted was inconsistent with
the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.\17\ Further, the
commenter stated that the proposed fees would be prohibitively
expensive for the ``vast majority'' of retail investors and could
result in a two-tier market for transparency.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See SIA Letter I, supra note 4.
    \17\ See SIA Letter I, supra note 4. The commenter also argued
that the Exchange failed to address whether the proposal imposed a
burden on competition and the statutory basis for the proposal. See
also SIA Letter II supra note 4.
    \18\ See SIA Letter I, supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two commenters also argued that the proposal was deficient because
the Exchange failed to adequately justify the reasonableness of the
proposed fees.\19\ Specifically, one commenter argued that the Exchange
failed to provide the information necessary to determine whether the
proposed fees bear any relation to costs, or whether they constitute an
equitable allocation of the costs associated with using the Exchange's
facilities.\20\ The commenter also noted that the Exchange failed to
provide the methodology it used to determine the proposed fees.\21\ The
commenter asserted that without the foregoing information, the
Commission lacks a legally sufficient foundation to approve the
proposed fees.\22\ Another commenter argued that the Exchange provided
no basis for assessing how the

fees were determined and noted that the Exchange's only guidance was an
assertion that its fees are in line with fees charged by other
SROs.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See SIA Letters I and II, and Netcoalition Letter, supra
note 4.
    \20\ See SIA Letters I and II, supra note 4.
    \21\ Id.
    \22\ See SIA Letter I, supra note 4.
    \23\ See Netcoalition Letter, supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter argued that the proposal should not be approved
because the Exchange failed to include the contract terms which would
govern the distribution and access to the NYSE Arca Data.\24\ The
commenter believed that the Exchange should have to file the terms of
its vendor contract with Commission for public comment and review
because they will ``restrict access and set material terms'' for access
to the NYSE Arca Data.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See SIA Letters I and II, supra note 4.
    \25\ See SIA Letter I, supra note 4. See also SIA Letter II,
supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the commenter argued that Regulation NMS established that
broker-dealers can distribute their own data so long as the terms of
distribution are fair and reasonable and not unreasonably
discriminatory.\26\ The commenter asserted that the Exchange failed to
``recognize [these] rights reflected in Regulation NMS'' or ``to
negotiate with the industry a reciprocal licensing agreement.'' \27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See SIA Letters I and II, supra note 4.
    \27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, one commenter argued that the Exchange failed to consider
the administrative burdens associated with implementing the
proposal.\28\ This commenter noted that firms would be required to
track access and usage, which could impose ``significant development
costs.'' \29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See SIA Letter I, supra note 4.
    \29\ See SIA Letter I, supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Exchange's Responses to Comments

    In its responses to the commenters, the Exchange acknowledged that
it was seeking to impose fees for data it currently distributes for
free. The Exchange noted, however, that Regulation NMS allows each
national securities exchange to distribute market data outside of the
national market system plans so long as the terms of distribution are
fair, reasonable, and not unreasonably discriminatory.\30\ The Exchange
argued that the proposal is consistent with these requirements and
reflects an equitable allocation of the Exchange's overall costs to
users of its facilities.\31\ NYSE Arca also noted its ``desire to
participate in a revenue stream that is growing increasingly
significant for its primary competitors.'' \32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See NYSE Arca Response I and II, supra note 5.
    \31\ See NYSE Arca Response I, supra note 5.
    \32\ See NYSE Arca Response II, supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange argued that the proposal establishes ``a framework for
distributing data in which all vendors and end users are permitted to
receive and use the Exchange's market data on equal, non-discriminatory
terms.'' \33\ The Exchange reiterated its assertion that the proposed
professional and non-professional device fees for the NYSE Arca Data
were fair and reasonable because they ``are far lower than those
already established--and approved by the Commission--for similar
products offered by other U.S. equity exchanges and stock markets.''
\34\ In particular, the Exchange noted that the proposed $15 per month
device fee for each of the ArcaBook data products is less than both the
$60 per month and $70 per month device fees that the NYSE and Nasdaq,
respectively, charge for comparable market data products.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See NYSE Arca Response I, supra note 5.
    \34\ See NYSE Arca Response I, supra note 5.
    \35\ See NYSE Arca Response I, supra note 5. See also NYSE Arca
Response II, supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to its proposed fees, the Exchange noted, further,
that it had invested significantly in its ArcaBook products, including
making technological enhancements that allowed the Exchange to expand
capacity and improve processing efficiency as message traffic
increased, thereby reducing the latency associated with the
distribution of ArcaBook data.\36\ The Exchange stated that ``[i]n
determining to invest the resources necessary to enhance ArcaBook
technology, the Exchange contemplated that it would seek to charge for
the receipt and use of ArcaBook data.'' \37\ The Exchange also
emphasized the quality of its market data relative to other comparable
products, asserting, for example, that ``NYSE Arca is at the inside
price virtually as often as Nasdaq, yet the proposed fee for ArcaBook
is merely one-fifth of the TotalView fee.'' \38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See NYSE Arca Response II, supra note 5.
    \37\ See NYSE Arca Response II, supra note 5.
    \38\ See NYSE Arca Response II, supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange stated that it proposes to use the CTA and CQ Plan
contracts to govern the distribution of NYSE Arca Data and that it was
not amending the terms of these existing contracts or imposing
restrictions on the use or display of its data beyond those that are
currently set forth in the contracts.\39\ Further, the Exchange
specifically noted that these contracts do not prohibit a broker-dealer
from making its own data available outside of the CTA and CQ Plans.
Finally, the Exchange argued that by using this current structure, it
believes that the administrative burdens on firms and vendors should be
low.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See NYSE Arca Response I, supra note 5.
    \40\ See NYSE Arca Response I, supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also argued that it believes that the proposal would
foster competition because the proposed fees (i) will apply equally to
all subscribers; (ii) will allow the Exchange to further diversify its
revenue stream to compete with its rivals; and (iii) may provide a
competitive advantage to those markets that elect not to charge
fees.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See NYSE Arca Response I, supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Discussion

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposal is
consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange
and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6(b)(4) of the
Act,\42\ which requires that the rules of a national securities
exchange provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees,
and other charges among its members and issuers and other persons using
its facilities, and with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\43\ which
requires, among other things, that the rules of a national securities
exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade,
to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \43\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \44\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition, and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described more fully above, the proposal establishes fees for
NYSE Arca Data, including a $750 per month access fee and device fees
of $30 per month for professional subscribers and $10 per month for
non-professional subscribers.\45\ The Commission finds that these fees
are consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act because they are
reasonable when compared to the fees charged by other markets for
similar products. In this regard, the Commission notes that the NYSE
has established an access fee of $5,000 per month for the receipt of
its OpenBook data feed, with a $60 per month

terminal fee.\46\ Similarly, Nasdaq charges access fees ranging from
$1,000 to $5,000 per month for its TotalView product, and $1,000 to
$5,000 per month for its OpenView product, with a combined monthly
device fee of $76 for both products for professional subscribers and a
monthly fee of $14 for non-professional subscribers to TotalView.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ Professional subscribers would pay a monthly fee of $15 per
device for the receipt of ArcaBook data relating to CTA Plan and ETF
Securities, and $15 per device for the receipt of ArcaBook data
relating to Nasdaq UTP Plan Securities. Non-professional subscribers
would pay a monthly fee of $5 per device for the receipt of ArcaBook
data relating to CTA Plan and ETF Securities, and $5 per device for
the receipt of ArcaBook data relating to Nasdaq UTP Plan Securities.
    \46\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53585 (March 31,
2006), 71 FR 17934 (April 7, 2006) (order approving File Nos. SR-
NYSE-2004-43 and SR-NYSE-2005-32).
    \47\ According to the Exchange, Nasdaq does not offer a
nonprofessional subscriber rate for OpenView.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the proposal, the Exchange analyzes its proposed fees in
comparison with the fees that other U.S. markets, and the CTA and
Nasdaq UTP Plans, charge for comparable products.\48\ As described more
fully above,\49\ the Exchange also asserts that it devoted resources to
enhancing ArcaBook's technology and that it considered the quantity and
quality of ArcaBook data relative to comparable market data products in
setting fees for NYSE Arca Data.\50\ Accordingly, the Commission
disagrees with commenters' assertion \51\ that the Exchange has failed
to justify its proposed fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ The Exchange provides an additional discussion of its
proposed fees in NYSE Arca Responses I and II, supra note 5.
    \49\ See notes 30--32, supra, and accompanying text.
    \50\ See NYSE Arca Response II, supra note 5. In this regard,
the Exchange states that ``[f]or ArcaBook, the Exchange examined the
quantity and quality of the market data relative to other similar
products and determined to comparatively under-price the product so
as to minimize the impact on market data budgets as ArcaBook
transitions to a fee-liable product.'' See NYSE Arca Response II,
supra note 5.
    \51\ See SIA Letters I and II and Netcoalition Letter, supra
note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed more fully above, one commenter also asserts that the
imposition of fees for NYSE Arca Data, which previously was distributed
without charge, would diminish market transparency and impede
competition,\52\ and make NYSE Arca Data prohibitively expensive for
most retail investors, thereby creating a ``two-tier market for
transparency'' that is ``contrary to the fairness goals of the Order
Protection Rule.'' \53\ Another commenter believes that investors
should be able to view market data free of charge.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ See SIA Letter I, supra note 4.
    \53\ See SIA Letters I and II, supra note 4.
    \54\ See Spencer Letter, supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the Commission stated in adopting Regulation NMS, Exchange Act
Rule 601 \55\ rescinded the prohibition on SROs and their members
disseminating their trade reports independently, with or without
fees.\56\ The Commission noted, further, that Exchange Act Rule 603(a)
\57\ establishes uniform standards for the distribution of quotations
and trades that creates an equivalent regulatory regime for all types
of markets.\58\ In this regard, Exchange Act Rule 603(a)(1) requires
that any market information distributed by an exclusive processor, or
by a broker or dealer that is the exclusive source of information, be
made available to securities information processors on terms that are
fair and reasonable.\59\ Exchange Act Rule 603(a)(2) requires any SRO,
broker, or dealer that distributes market information to do so on terms
that are not unreasonably discriminatory. As the Commission stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ 17 CFR 242.601.
    \56\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting
Release''), at Section V.B.3.a.
    \57\ 17 CFR 242.603(a).
    \58\ See Regulation NMS Adopting Release, supra note 56, at
Section V.B.3.a.
    \59\ See Regulation NMS Adopting Release, supra note 56, at
Section V.B.3.a.

    These requirements prohibit, for example, a market from making
its `core data' (i.e., data that it is required to provide to a
Network processor) available to vendors on a more timely basis than
it makes available the core data to a Network processor.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\  See Regulation NMS Adopting Release, supra note 56, at
Section V.B.3.a.

    The Commission believes that the commenter's assertion that the
proposal is inconsistent with the fairness goals of the Order
Protection Rule fails to recognize that Exchange Act Rules 601 and 603
permit, and establish general conditions for, the distribution of
quotation and transaction information by SROs and other entities.
Accordingly, the Commission believes that the proposal, which
establishes fees and terms for the distribution of the Exchange's limit
order data, involve activities permitted under Exchange Act Rule 603,
subject to the requirements of Exchange Act Rule 603(a).
    The Commission does not believe that the imposition of fees for
NYSE Arca Data will diminish market transparency or impede competition.
In this regard, the Commission notes that NYSE Arca Data will continue
to be available, and that, like the Exchange, other SROs, as well as
brokers and dealers, will be free to distribute their market
information. In addition, the Exchange believes that the fees for NYSE
Arca Data could help it to compete more effectively with other
markets.\61\ The Exchange also notes that its fees will apply equally
to all professional and non-professional subscribers, and that its fee
structure will not advantage any one subscriber relative to
another.\62\ Accordingly, the Commission does not believe that the
proposal will impede competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ See NYSE Arca Response I, supra note 5.
    \62\ See NYSE Arca Response I, supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter also raises concerns regarding the contract terms
that will govern the distribution of NYSE Arca Data. In particular, the
commenter asserts that the Exchange has not filed its vendor
distribution agreement with the Commission for public notice and
comment and Commission approval, or with the CTA.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ See SIA Letters I and II, supra note 4. In this regard, the
commenter states that, procedurally, the Exchange ``is amending and
adding to the CTA vendor agreement without first submitting its
contractual changes through the CTA's processes, which are subject
to industry input through the new Advisory Committee mandated by
Regulation NMS.'' See SIA Letter I, supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission disagrees with this assertion, and notes that the
Exchange stated in its proposal that it planned to use the vendor and
subscriber agreements used by CTA and CQ Plan Participants (the ``CTA/
CQ Vendor and Subscriber Agreements'') to govern the distribution of
NYSE Arca Data. According to the Exchange, the CTA/CQ Vendor and
Subscriber Agreements ``are drafted as generic one-size-fits all
agreements and explicitly apply to the receipt and use of certain
market data that individual exchanges make available in the same way
that they apply to data made available under the CTA and CQ Plans,''
and the contracts need not be amended to cause them to govern the
receipt and use of the Exchange's data.\64\ The Exchange maintains that
because ``the terms and conditions of the CTA/CQ contracts do not
change in any way with the addition of the Exchange's market data * * *
there are no changes for the industry or Commission to review.'' \65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ See NYSE Arca Response I, supra note 5.
    \65\ See NYSE Arca Response I, supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the Exchange may use the CTA/CQ Vendor
and Subscriber Agreements to govern the distribution of NYSE Arca
Data.\66\

The Commission notes that the NYSE used the CTA Vendor Agreement to
govern the distribution of its OpenBook and Liquidity Quote market data
products.\67\ In addition, according to NYSE Arca, the CTA/CQ Vendor
and Subscriber Agreements ``have been in effect for many years and
enjoy widespread use and acceptance.'' \68\ The Exchange represents
that, following consultations with vendors and end-users, and in
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
response to client demand, the Exchange:

chose to fold itself into an existing contract and administration
system rather than to burden clients with another set of market data
agreements and another market data reporting system, both of which
would require clients to commit additional legal and technical
resources to support the Exchange's data products.\69\

    \66\ The Commission is not approving the CTA/CQ Vendor and
Subscriber Agreements, which the CTA and CQ Plan Participants filed
with the Commission as amendments to the CTA and CQ Plans that were
effective on filing with the Commission pursuant to Exchange Act
Rule 11Aa3-2(c)(3)(iii) (redesignated as Rule 608(b)(3)(iii) of
Regulation NMS). See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No.
28407 (September 6, 1990), 55 FR 37276 (September 10, 1990) (File
No. 4-2811) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness of
amendments to the Consolidated Tape Association Plan and the
Consolidated Quotation Plan). Exchange Act Rule 11Aa3-2(c)(3)(iii)
(redesignated as Rule 608(b)(3)(iii) of Regulation NMS) allows a
proposed amendment to a national market system plan to be put into
effect upon filing with the Commission if the plan sponsors
designate the proposed amendment as involving solely technical or
ministerial matters.
    \67\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 53585 (March 31,
2006), 71 FR 17934 (April 7, 2006) (order approving File Nos. SR-
NYSE-2004-43 and NYSE-2005-32) (relating to OpenBook); and 51438
(March 28, 2005), 70 FR 17137 (April 4, 2005) (order approving File
No. SR-NYSE-2004-32) (relating to Liquidity Quote). For both the
OpenBook and Liquidity Quote products, the NYSE attached to the CTA
Vendor Agreement an Exhibit C containing additional terms governing
the distribution of those products, which the Commission
specifically approved. NYSE Arca is not including additional
contract terms in its proposal.
    \68\ See NYSE Arca Response I, supra note 5.
    \69\ See NYSE Arca Response I, supra note 5.

In addition, the Commission notes that the Exchange has represented
that it is not imposing restrictions on the use or display of its data
beyond those set forth in the existing CTA/CQ Vendor and Subscriber
Agreements.\70\ Because the Exchange has not proposed changes to the
CTA/CQ Vendor and Subscriber Agreements, the Commission disagrees with
one commenter's assertion that the Exchange is ``amending and adding to
the CTA vendor agreement.'' \71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ See NYSE Arca Response I, supra note 5.
    \71\ See SIA Letter I, supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This commenter also believes that the Exchange has not recognized
the rights of a broker or dealer, established in Regulation NMS, to
distribute its order information, subject to the condition that it does
so on terms that are fair and reasonable and not unreasonably
discriminatory.\72\ In response, the Exchange states that the CTA/CQ
Vendor and Subscriber Agreements do not prohibit a broker-dealer member
of a Plan Participant from making available to the public information
relating to the orders and transaction reports that it provides to Plan
Participants.\73\ Accordingly, the Commission believes that the
Exchange has acknowledged the rights of a broker or dealer to
distribute its market information, subject to the requirements of
Exchange Act Rule 603(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ See SIA Letters I and II, supra note 4.
    \73\ See NYSE Arca Response I, supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter also asserts that the Exchange has failed to consider
the administrative burdens that the proposal would impose, including
the need for broker-dealers to develop system controls to track
ArcaBook access and usage.\74\ In response, the Exchange represents
that it has communicated with its customers to ensure system readiness
and is using a long-standing and broadly-used administrative system to
minimize the amount of development effort required to meet the
administrative requirements associated with the proposal.\75\
Accordingly, the Commission believes that the Exchange has considered
the administrative requirements associated with the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ See SIA Letter I, supra note 4.
    \75\ See NYSE Arca Response I, supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\76\ that the proposal (SR-NYSEArca-2006-21), is approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \77\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\77\
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-17539 Filed 10-19-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: October 11, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 196)]
[Notices]
[Page 57924-57925]
[DOCID:fr11oc07-45]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[P-11214-015]

 City of Carlyle, IL; Notice of Application for Surrender of
License and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

October 3, 2007.
    Take notice that the following application has been filed with the
Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Surrender of License.
    b. Project No.: 11214-015.
    c. Date Filed: September 20, 2007.
    d. Applicant: City of Carlyle, Illinois.
    e. Name of Project: Carlyle Project.
    f. Location: On Kaskaskia River in Clinton County, Illinois. The
project occupies lands of the United States managed by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. John Hodapp, Electric Foreman, City of
Carlyle, 850 Franklin Street, Carlyle, IL 62231; telephone (618) 594-
5215 or Donald H. Clarke, Counsel for the City of Carlyle, Law Offices
of GKRSI, 1500 K Street, NW., Suite 300, Washington, DC 20005;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Diane M. Murray, Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, and e-
mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and
protests: November 15, 2007. All documents (original and eight copies)
should be filed with: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    k. Description of Request: The licensee filed an application to
surrender its license for the unconstructed Carlyle Hydroelectric
Project. No ground disturbing activities have occurred. The U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, which owns and operates the Carlyle Dam, remains in
control of the dam and appurtenant facilities.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the

``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. You may also
register online

at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via

e-mail of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending
projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is

also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents--All filings must (1)
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS'', ``PROTEST'', OR ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as
applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to
which the filing refers. All documents (original and eight copies)
should be filed with: Kimberly Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. A
copy of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each
representative of the Applicant specified in the particular
application.
    p. Agency Comments--Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.
    q. e-Filing: Motions to intervene, protests, and comments may be
filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
at http://www.ferc.gov under the ``e-Filing'' link.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-20014 Filed 10-10-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: August 13, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 157)]
[Notices]
[Page 47146-47147]
[DOCID:fr13au08-58]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

August 06, 2008.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER96-2830-008.
    Applicants: Washington Gas Energy Services, Inc.
    Description: Washington Gas Energy Service Inc submits a
Supplemental Compliance Filing, Second Revised sheet 1 to their
electric power marketing tariff.
    Filed Date: 08/01/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080805-0211.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 22, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER98-4400-010.
    Applicants: Pittsfield Generating Company, L.P.
    Description: Pittsfield Generating Company LP submits a revised
table of all generation assets controlled by it and affiliates grouped
by balancing authority area.
    Filed Date: 08/01/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080805-0212.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 22, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER01-205-029; ER98-2640-027; ER98-4590-025; ER99-
1610-033.
    Applicants: Xcel Energy Services Inc.
    Description: Refund Report of Xcel Energy Services Inc.
    Filed Date: 08/05/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080805-5077.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, August 26, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-185-009.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: New York Independent System Operator Inc submits the
results of their real-time guarantee payment impact test for the period
from 8/7/06 to 10/31/07.
    Filed Date: 08/04/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080805-0116.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, August 25, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-549-004; EC06-126-006; EL07-71-003.
    Applicants: NSTAR Electric Company.
    Description: Electric Refund Report of NSTAR Electric Company.
    Filed Date: 08/04/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080804-5104.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, August 25, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1192-001.
    Applicants: Wisconsin Electric Power Company.
    Description: Amended and Restated Uncontested Settlement Agreement
and Request for Expedited Approval.
    Filed Date: 07/24/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080724-5053.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, August 14, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-895-001.
    Applicants: Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.
    Description: Consolidated Edison Co of New York, Inc responds to
FERC's 6/24/08 Notice of Deficiency.
    Filed Date: 08/01/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080805-0111.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 22, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1323-000.
    Applicants: Fowler Ridge Wind Farm LLC.
    Description: Application of Fowler Ridge Wind Farm LLC for order
accepting market-based rate tariff, granting authorization and blanket
authority and waiving certain requirements.
    Filed Date: 08/01/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080805-0072.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 22, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1328-000.
    Applicants: New England Participating Transmission.
    Description: New England's Participating Transmission Owners
submits supporting materials which identify updated rates for regional
transmission and scheduling, system control and dispatch services
effective as of 6/1/08.
    Filed Date: 07/31/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080801-0112.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, August 21, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1355-000.

    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison Co submits a petition for
waiver of tariff provisions to accommodate transition to reformed
interconnection process etc.
    Filed Date: 08/04/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080805-0109.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, August 25, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1356-000.
    Applicants: Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company.
    Description: Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co submits a revised formula
rate schedule and supporting testimony and exhibits in compliance with
FERC's Order 614.
    Filed Date: 08/01/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080805-0110.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 22, 2008.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
securities filings:
    Docket Numbers: ES08-57-000.
    Applicants: Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.
    Description: Request of Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. for
Authorization to Issue Short-Term Debt.
    Filed Date: 08/04/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080804-5055.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, August 25, 2008.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed 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>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-18726 Filed 8-12-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 22, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 83667-83671]
[FR Doc No: 2020-28153]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-90689]

Order Granting Temporary Exemptive Relief, Pursuant to Section 36
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'') and Rule
608(e) of Regulation NMS Under the Exchange Act, From Section 8.1.1 and
Section 8.1.2 of Appendix D of the National Market System Plan
Governing the Consolidated Audit Trail

December 16, 2020.

I. Introduction

    By letter dated December 1, 2020 (``Participant Letter''), BOX
Exchange LLC, Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc., Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc., Cboe C2
Exchange, Inc., Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc., Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.,
Cboe Exchange, Inc., Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA''), Investors Exchange LLC, Long-Term Stock Exchange, Inc.,
MEMX LLC, Miami International Securities Exchange LLC, MIAX Emerald,
LLC, MIAX PEARL, LLC, NASDAQ BX, Inc., Nasdaq GEMX, LLC, Nasdaq ISE,
LLC, Nasdaq MRX, LLC, NASDAQ PHLX LLC, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, New
York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE American LLC, NYSE Arca, Inc., NYSE
Chicago, Inc., and NYSE National, Inc. (collectively, the
``Participants'') request that the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission''), pursuant to the Commission's authority under
Section 36 of the Exchange Act \1\ and Rule 608(e) of Regulation NMS
under the Exchange Act,\2\ grant exemptive relief from the national
market system plan governing the

consolidated audit trail (the ``CAT NMS Plan'').\3\ Specifically, the
Participants request that the Commission provide temporary exemptive
relief from certain requirements of the CAT NMS Plan that relate to the
online targeted query tool (``OTQT'') described in Section 6.10(c)(i)
of the CAT NMS Plan.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78mm.
    \2\ 17 CFR 242.608(e).
    \3\ The Commission approved the CAT NMS Plan, as modified, on
November 15, 2016. See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 79318
(November 15, 2016), 81 FR 84696 (November 23, 2016) (``CAT NMS Plan
Approval Order''). The CAT NMS Plan functions as the limited
liability company agreement of the jointly owned limited liability
company formed under Delaware state law through which the
Participants conduct activities related to the consolidated audit
trail (the ``Company'').
    \4\ See id. at Appendix D, Section 8.1.1. See also Letter from
Michael Simon, CAT NMS Plan Operating Committee Chair, to Vanessa
Countryman, Secretary, Commission, dated December 1, 2020, available
at https://catnmsplan.com/sites/default/files/2020-12/12.01.20-CAT-Exemption-Request-OTQT.pdf (``Participant Letter''). The
Participants state that this exemptive relief request amends and
replaces in its entirety the request previously submitted to the
Commission on November 16, 2020. See id. at 2 n.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons set forth below, this Order grants the
Participants' request for temporary exemptive relief from the above-
described provisions of the CAT NMS Plan, subject to certain
conditions.

II. Request for Relief

    In their letter, the Participants explain that Section 6.10(c)(i)
of the CAT NMS Plan requires the Plan Processor \5\ to provide
Participants and the Commission with access to all CAT Data \6\ stored
in the Central Repository \7\ through three different methods: (1) The
OTQT, (2) user-defined direct queries, and (3) and bulk extracts.\8\
Sections 8.1.1 and 8.1.2 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan set forth
certain functionality requirements for the OTQT from which the
Participants seek relief.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``Plan Processor'' is a defined term under the CAT NMS Plan
and means ``the Initial Plan Processor or any other Person selected
by the Operating Committee pursuant to SEC Rule 613 and Sections
4.3(b)(i) and 6.1, and with regard to the Initial Plan Processor,
the Selection Plan, to perform the CAT processing functions required
by SEC Rule 613 and set forth in this Agreement.'' See CAT NMS Plan,
supra note 3, at Section 1.1.
    \6\ ``CAT Data'' is a defined term under the CAT NMS Plan and
means ``data derived from Participant Data, Industry Member Data,
SIP Data, and such other data as the Operating Committee may
designate as ``CAT Data'' from time to time.'' See id.
    \7\ ``Central Repository'' is a defined term under the CAT NMS
Plan and means ``the repository responsible for the receipt,
consolidation, and retention of all information reported to the CAT
pursuant to SEC Rule 613 and this Agreement.'' See id.
    \8\ See Participant Letter, supra note 4, at 2; see also CAT NMS
Plan, supra note 3, at Section 6.10(c)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Error Correction Rate Functionality

    The Participants state that the OTQT must ``provide authorized
users with the ability to retrieve CAT Data via an online query screen
that includes the ability to choose from a variety of pre-defined
selection criteria,'' \9\ including, among other things, the ``CAT
Reporter correction rate over time.'' \10\ The Participants request
temporary exemptive relief from compliance with the requirement in
Section 8.1.1 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan that authorized users
must be able to conduct targeted queries through the OTQT with respect
to the CAT Reporter correction rate over time (the ``Error Correction
Rate Functionality'').\11\ The Participants state that the Plan
Processor needs additional time to incorporate the Error Correction
Rate Functionality to the OTQT.\12\ Specifically, the Participants
believe that regulators will able to perform searches with respect to
the CAT Reporter correction rate over time by April 30, 2021.\13\ The
Participants therefore request that any exemptive relief granted by the
Commission with respect to the Error Correction Rate Functionality
extend until April 30, 2021.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See CAT NMS Plan, supra note 3, at 6.10(c)(i)(A).
    \10\ See id. at Appendix D, Section 8.1.1. See also Participant
Letter, supra note 4, at 2.
    \11\ See Participant Letter, supra note 4, at 2-3. The
Participants describe this functionality as ``Error Correction Time
Functionality,'' but the Commission believes that the term ``Error
Correction Rate Functionality'' more accurately describes the
functionality.
    \12\ See Participant Letter, supra note 4, at 3.
    \13\ See id. at 3. The Participants note that this schedule
would align the release of the Error Correction Rate Functionality
with other functionality releases that will add data for OTQT
queries concerning ``the new equity exchange order book and volume
concentration using equity exchange data.'' See id. at 3.
    \14\ See id. at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To support their request, the Participants state that the
Participants and the Commission currently have access to ``a variety of
fields of processed CAT Data and/or validated (unlinked) data'' via
existing Plan Processor tools called DIVER and MIRS.\15\ The
Participants further represent that, by December 2020, the Participants
and the Commission will have access to information regarding the CAT
Reporter correction rate over time for ``compliance review purposes''
either through the CAT Reporter Portal or through another existing Plan
Processor tool called BDSQL,\16\ such that providing the CAT Reporter
correction rate over time through the OTQT would in many ways be
duplicative.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See id. at 3. The Participants note that ``DIVER'' and
``MIRS'' are FINRA CAT's versions of the OTQT. See id. at 2 n.6
    \16\ ``BDSQL'' is the name used by FINRA to describe its
proprietary user-defined direct query tool.
    \17\ See id. at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Search Return Functionality and Simultaneous Query Functionality

    The Participants state that Section 8.1.2 of Appendix D of the CAT
NMS Plan sets forth various performance requirements for OTQT searches.
One of these requirements sets forth timeframes in which results must
be returned for various types of queries (``Search Return
Functionality'').\18\ Another requirement set forth in Section 8.1.2 of
Appendix D is that the OTQT must ``be able to process up to 300
simultaneous query requests with no performance degradation''
(``Simultaneous Query Functionality'').\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See id. at 3. See also CAT NMS Plan, supra note 3, at
Appendix D, Section 8.1.2 (setting out the following timeframes: (1)
``Within 1 minute for all trades and related lifecycle events for a
specific Customer or CAT Reporter with the ability to filter by
security and time range for a specified time window up to and
including an entire day,'' (2) ``within 30 minutes for all trades
and related lifecycle events for a specific Customer or CAT Reporter
in a specified date range (maximum 1 month),'' and (3) ``within 6
hours for all trades and related lifecycle events for a specific
Customer or CAT Reporter in a specified date range (maximum 12-month
duration from the most recent 24 months)'').
    \19\ See Participant Letter, supra note 4, at 4. See also CAT
NMS Plan, supra note 3, at Section 8.1.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the Participant Letter, the OTQT provided by the Plan
Processor is based on a data mart model that ``supports multi-day/
month/year queries on any field in the CAT and can return all records
to the regulatory user for further filtering and analytics.'' \20\ The
Participants state that this model has been used by FINRA in its
surveillance and market oversight operations for approximately five
years that ``has proven to be an effective and reliable surveillance
tool that produces timely results for regulatory use cases.'' \21\
``[I]f the user requests data for a single symbol during a specified
time period on a single trade date, all data for that date and symbol
(hundreds of millions of records) must be scanned to locate the
specific records requested.'' \22\ A data mart is then created which
allows a regulatory user to perform any subsequent filtering and
analysis.\23\ The Participants state that, once a data mart has been
created, the results from any subsequent filtering and analysis are
returned ``well within the timeframes set forth in Section 8.1.2 of
Appendix

D.'' \24\ In some instances, however, the Participants acknowledge that
the amount of time required by the OTQT to populate a data mart is
longer than the timeframes set forth in the CAT NMS Plan.\25\ They
state, for example, that ``[i]t typically currently takes up to four
minutes for queries for a single day involving equities trades and up
to six minutes for options trade queries for a single day for the OTQT
to create and return a data mart in response to targeted search
requests with a required response time of one minute under Section
8.1.2 of Appendix D.'' \26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Participant Letter, supra note 4, at 4.
    \21\ See id. at 4-5.
    \22\ See id. at 4.
    \23\ See id.
    \24\ See id. With respect to complex queries, the Participants
state that the OTQT returns data marts to regulatory users ``well
before'' the 24-hour time limit set forth in the CAT NMS Plan. See
id.; see also CAT NMS Plan, supra note 3, at Appendix D, Section
8.1.2. However, the Participants also state that ``a request for
related lifecycles makes a query complex.'' See Participant Letter,
supra note 4, at 5 n.18. The Commission does not agree that a
request for related lifecycles makes a query complex. See Part III
infra for further discussion of the OTQT requirements set forth in
the CAT NMS Plan. In addition, and as discussed in Part III infra,
the Commission believes that the timeframe for ``returning results''
in Section 8.1.2 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan begins with the
submission of the query in the OTQT and ends with the return of the
results of the query to the user inclusive of related linkages.
    \25\ See Participant Letter, supra note 4, at 4.
    \26\ See id. at 4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Participants therefore request temporary exemptive relief from
compliance with the Search Return Functionality and the Simultaneous
Query Functionality requirements of Section 8.1.2 of Appendix D of the
CAT NMS Plan until July 31, 2023.\27\ During the period of the
exemption, the Participants assert that they will ``continue to assess
the performance of the OTQT and look for opportunities to further
reduce the time that it takes to build the data mart in response to
OTQT queries on a consistent basis.'' \28\ In this respect, the
Participants represent that they have been working with the Plan
Processor to reduce the time that it takes to populate an OTQT data
mart.\29\ They explain that the Plan Processor runs ``multiple
benchmark queries each day that are designed to measure system
performance given CAT Data sets and query usage, including the times to
create data marts for various types of queries and responses during
simultaneous querying,'' and shares its results with the Participants
and the Commission to identify areas for potential performance
enhancements.\30\ The Participant Letter further states that such
efforts have already reduced the time required to populate data marts
in the OTQT.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See id. at 6.
    \28\ See id.
    \29\ See id. at 5.
    \30\ See id.
    \31\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion

    As the Participants note, Sections 6.10(c) and Appendix D, Section
8.1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan require the OTQT to ``provide authorized
users with the ability to retrieve CAT Data via an online query screen
that includes the ability to choose from a variety of pre-defined
selection criteria,'' \32\ including, among other things, the ``CAT
Reporter correction rate over time'' (or, the ``Error Correction Rate
Functionality'').\33\ Section 8.1.2 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan
further sets forth minimum performance requirements for OTQT searches
that include equities and options trade data only in the search
criteria, including returning results within the following timeframes:
(1) ``within 1 minute for all trades and related lifecycle events for a
specific Customer or CAT Reporter with the ability to filter by
security and time range for a specified time window up to and including
an entire day''; (2) ``within 30 minutes for all trades and related
lifecycle events for a specific Customer or CAT Reporter in a specified
date range (maximum 1 month)''; and (3) ``within 6 hours for all trades
and related lifecycle events for a specific Customer or CAT Reporter in
a specified date range (maximum 12-month duration from the most recent
24 months).'' \34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See CAT NMS Plan, supra note 3, at 6.10(c)(i)(A).
    \33\ See id. at Appendix D, Section 8.1.1.
    \34\ See id. at Appendix D, Section 8.1.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The timeframe for ``returning results'' in Section 8.1.2 of
Appendix D (i.e., the time to ``return results'' or the ``Search Return
Functionality'') begins with the submission of the query in the OTQT
and ends with the return of the results of the query to the user; it
does not begin with the population of a data mart. ``Returning
results'' captures the entirety of the time it takes to generate
results in response to the user's initial query. If the query response
time requirements for ``returning results'' begins at a time later than
the time the query was submitted, query response times would fail to
fully reflect the total time necessary for the OTQT to generate
results, and display them to the user.\35\ This would be inconsistent
with the plain meaning of the CAT NMS Plan language concerning query
response time requirements and would undermine the purpose of the
performance standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Appendix D, Section 8.1.1 requires that the OTQT ``must
provide a record count of the result set, the date and time the
query request is submitted, and the date and time the result set is
provided to the users.'' It also requires that the OTQT must ``log
submitted queries and parameters used in the query, the user ID of
the submitter, the date and time of the submission, as well as the
delivery of results.'' See id. at Appendix D, Section 8.1.1. Since
the CAT NMS Plan requires the OTQT to record the date and time the
query request is submitted, the query response times set forth in
the CAT NMS Plan should be based on this information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Appendix D, Section 8.1.2 of the CAT NMS Plan sets forth
requirements for ``related lifecycle events'' and ``complex queries.''
``Related lifecycle events'' are covered by the 1 minute, 30 minute,
and 6 hour requirements in the CAT NMS Plan set forth above,\36\
whereas Appendix D, Section 8.1.2 of the CAT NMS Plan separately
provides that ``[f]or the complex queries that either scan large
volumes of data (e.g., multiple trade dates) or return large result
sets (>1M records), the response time must generally be available
within 24 hours of the submission of the request.'' \37\ Under the CAT
NMS Plan, therefore, queries for ``related lifecycle events'' are not
``complex queries'' and thus the 24 hour requirement does not apply. If
queries including ``related lifecycle events'' were ``complex
queries,'' then any query that included ``related lifecycle events''
would be subject to the 24 hour requirement. This is not consistent
with the language of the CAT NMS Plan. Rather, based on the language of
the CAT NMS Plan, ``related lifecycle events'' are included in, and
thus are subject to, the 1 minute, 30 minute, and 6 hour requirements
for OTQT searches that include equities and options trade data only as
search criteria. Interpreting any query that includes ``related
lifecycle events'' as a ``complex query'' contradicts the presence of
``related lifecycle events'' in the CAT NMS Plan language setting forth
the 1 minute, 30 minute, and 6 hour requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See, e.g., note 34 supra.
    \37\ See CAT NMS Plan, supra note 3, at Appendix D, Section
8.1.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Appendix D, Section 8.1.2 also requires that ``[t]he online
targeted query tool must be able to process up to 300 simultaneous
query requests with no performance degradation'' (or, the
``Simultaneous Query Functionality'').\38\ As stated above, the
timeframe for ``returning results'' begins with the submission of the
query in the OTQT and ends with the return of the results of the query
to the user. The Commission understands that the Participants have not
yet determined the meaning of ``performance degradation,''

but the Commission believes ``performance degradation'' on query
requests should be based on the ability of the OTQT to meet the above-
described timeframes set forth by Appendix D, Section 8.1.2 of the CAT
NMS Plan.\39\ Performance degradation is a deterioration in performance
as measured according to a certain standard. The Commission believes it
is reasonable to assess ``performance degradation'' based on a
measurement of performance against the CAT NMS Plan and service level
agreement (``SLA'') requirements,\40\ because the Participants are
already required to meet these standards. Thus, if the OTQT is able to
process up to 300 simultaneous query requests while meeting the CAT NMS
Plan and SLA requirements, there would be no ``performance
degradation.'' \41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See CAT NMS Plan, supra note 3, at Appendix D, Section
8.1.1.
    \39\ See, e.g., notes 34-37 and associated text supra.
    \40\ See CAT NMS Plan, supra note 3, at Appendix D, Section 8.5
(requiring the establishment of SLAs for ``query performance and
response times'').
    \41\ The OTQT is required at all times to meet the CAT NMS Plan
requirement to process up to 300 simultaneous query requests with no
performance degradation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 36 of the Exchange Act grants the Commission the authority,
with certain limitations, to ``conditionally or unconditionally exempt
any person, security, or transaction . . . from any provision or
provisions of [the Exchange Act] or of any rule or regulation
thereunder, to the extent that such exemption is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, and is consistent with the
protection of investors.'' \42\ Rule 608(e) of Regulation NMS under the
Exchange Act authorizes the Commission to exempt, either
unconditionally or on specified terms and conditions, any self-
regulatory organization, member thereof, or specified security, from
the provisions of the rule if the Commission determines that such
exemption is consistent with the public interest, the protection of
investors, the maintenance of fair and orderly markets and the removal
of impediments to, and perfection of the mechanisms of, a national
market system.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ 15 U.S.C. 78mm(a)(1).
    \43\ 17 CFR 242.608(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that, pursuant to Section 36 of the
Exchange Act, the temporary exemptive relief requested by the
Participants is appropriate in the public interest and consistent with
the protection of investors, and that, pursuant to Rule 608(e) under
the Exchange Act, the temporary exemptive relief requested by the
Participants is consistent with the public interest, the protection of
investors, the maintenance of fair and orderly markets and the removal
of impediments to, and the perfection of the mechanisms of, a national
market system. The OTQT is an important regulatory tool required by the
CAT NMS Plan; it is one of only three access methods that regulators
have to query CAT Data, and it is the only method that can be used by
regulatory staff without programming experience to directly access the
CAT using tools provided by the Plan Processor. Thus, it is consistent
with the public interest, the protection of investors, and the
maintenance of fair and orderly markets that all facets of the OTQT are
implemented consistent with the CAT NMS Plan. The Commission
understands that implementing the above-described functionality will
require software development and architectural changes to the existing
OTQT. Providing the requested temporary exemptive relief will give the
Participants additional time to properly implement the above-described
functionality. The Commission believes that the long-term benefits of
allowing the Participants sufficient time to correctly implement these
facets of the OTQT outweigh any concerns regarding the impact of
delayed implementation.
    The Commission also believes that providing the requested exemptive
relief on the schedule proposed by the Participants is appropriate.
With respect to the Error Correction Rate Functionality requirements,
the Participants request that temporary exemptive relief be granted
until April 30, 2021. This schedule will align the release of the Error
Correction Rate Functionality with another planned functionality
release,\44\ while still providing a certain deadline that will
encourage progress towards the implementation of the required OTQT
functionality. The Commission believes that such alignment will enable
the SROs to leverage planned functionality release activities--
including user acceptance testing, documentation, and approvals--for
the release of the Error Correction Rate Functionality. Moreover, the
Commission believes that granting the requested exemptive relief on the
schedule proposed by the Participants would have only a limited impact
on regulators' utilization of the OTQT. As stated in the Participant
Letter, the Participants and the Commission currently have access to a
variety of fields of processed CAT Data and/or validated (unlinked)
data via the OTQT,\45\ and information regarding the CAT Reporter
correction rate over time will likewise be available for compliance
review purposes through the CAT Reporter Portal and/or the Plan
Processor's BDSQL tool by December 2020.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ This release will include, among other things, industry
member reporting of new equity exchange order book and volume
concentration data and expanded OTQT functionality related to this
data. See id. at 3.
    \45\ See id. at 3.
    \46\ See id. at 3. However, the Error Correction Rate
Functionality is still critical, as it will facilitate a regulatory
user's ability to determine the quality of CAT Data for regulatory
use (versus compliance review purposes).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the Search Return Functionality and the
Simultaneous Query Functionality requirements, the Participants request
that temporary exemptive relief be granted until July 31, 2023. The
Commission believes this deadline will give the Participants and the
Plan Processor sufficient time to develop the necessary systems and
technology.
    The Commission is also conditioning this temporary exemptive relief
on the following:
    First, as a condition to this exemptive relief, the Participants
would be required to satisfy all other requirements of the Full
Implementation of Core Equity Reporting Requirements milestone by
December 31, 2020.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ See note 13 supra. To the extent that the Participants are
availing themselves of exemptive relief from a CAT NMS Plan
requirement, including requirements relating to Error Correction
Rate Functionality, Search Return Functionality, and Simultaneous
Query Functionality, such requirement shall not be included in the
requirements for the Full Implementation of Core Equity Reporting
Requirements milestone, provided that the conditions of the
exemption are satisfied. However, to meet the Full Implementation of
Core Equity Reporting Requirements milestone, all other
functionality required by Section 8.1.1 and Section 8.1.2 of
Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan must incorporate the relevant
equities transaction data and be available to Participants and to
the Commission. See CAT NMS Plan, supra note 3, at Section 1.1
(``Full Implementation of Core Equity Requirements'' definition).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, to better enable the Commission to monitor progress towards
the reduction of query response times, the Participants would be
required, as a condition to this exemptive relief, to perform the
following benchmark queries to measure, on a monthly basis, the
timeframes in which the OTQT returns results for the following types of
queries: (1) All trades and related lifecycle linkages and/or events
for a specific Customer or CAT Reporter with the ability to filter by
security and time range for a specified time window up to and including
an entire day; (2) all trades and related lifecycle linkages and/or
events for a specific Customer or CAT Reporter in a specified date
range

(maximum 1 month); and (3) all trades and related lifecycle linkages
and/or events for a specific Customer or CAT Reporter in a specified
date range (maximum 12-month duration from the most recent 24 months).
For each benchmark query, the Participants should provide the average,
standard deviation, maximum, and minimum timeframes in which the OTQT
returns results, as the Commission believes it is important to capture
not only information regarding the average timeframes in which the OTQT
returns results, but also information regarding the variability and
consistency of the timeframes in which the OTQT returns results. In
addition, for each benchmark query, the Participants should use all
available CAT Data, including Participant data submitted by FINRA and
national securities exchanges, data submitted by Industry Members,\48\
and other data. Finally, the Participants should provide monthly
reports regarding any actual queries done by regulatory users with the
average, standard deviation, maximum, and minimum timeframes in which
the OTQT returns results for actual queries. All of the above-described
measurements should be provided to the Operating Committee on a monthly
basis and should be clearly set forth as factual indicators in the
Quarterly Progress Reports required by Section 6.6(c) of the CAT NMS
Plan. This condition will permit the Commission and the public to track
the Participants' progress towards meeting the above-described CAT NMS
Plan requirements and providing regulators with an effective OTQT by
the July 31, 2023 deadline.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ ``Industry Member'' is a defined term under the CAT NMS
Plan and means ``means a member of a national securities exchange or
a member of a national securities association.'' See CAT NMS Plan,
supra note 3, at Section 1.1.
    \49\ Pursuant to Section 6.6(c)(ii) of the CAT NMS Plan,
Quarterly Progress Reports must be filed with the Commission and
made publicly available on each SRO's website or collectively on the
CAT NMS Plan website.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, to better enable the Commission to monitor their progress
towards meeting the parallel processing requirements of the CAT NMS
Plan, the Participants would also be required, as a condition to this
exemptive relief, to measure on a monthly basis, using benchmark
queries, the time it takes to provide results to users from OTQT
searches that are run concurrently with either 50-100, 100-200, or 200-
300 queries, and to evaluate whether such results otherwise meet
current CAT NMS Plan and SLA performance requirements for targeted and
complex queries. These measurements should be provided to the Operating
Committee on a monthly basis and should be clearly set forth as factual
indicators in the Quarterly Progress Reports required by Section 6.6(c)
of the CAT NMS Plan.

IV. Conclusion

    Accordingly, it is hereby ordered, pursuant to Section 36(a)(1) of
the Exchange Act \50\ and Rule 608(e) under the Exchange Act,\51\ that
the Commission grants the Participants' request for temporary exemptive
relief, as set forth in the Participant Letter and subject to the
conditions described herein, from the requirements in Section 8.1.1 of
Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan with respect to the Error Correction
Rate Functionality until April 30, 2021 and from the requirements in
Section 8.1.2 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan with respect to the
Search Return Functionality and the Simultaneous Query Functionality
until July 31, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ 15 U.S.C. 78mm(a)(1).
    \51\ 17 CFR 242.608(e).

    By the Commission.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-28153 Filed 12-21-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 99 (Tuesday, May 26, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24846-24847]
[FR Doc No: E9-12076]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP07-52-000; Docket Nos. CP07-53-000, CP07-53-001]

Downeast LNG, Inc. and Downeast Pipeline, LLC.; Notice of
Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the
Proposed Downeast LNG Project

May 15, 2009.
    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission
or FERC) has prepared this draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
to address Downeast LNG, Inc.'s and Downeast Pipeline, LLC.'s
(hereafter collectively referred to as Downeast) proposed liquefied
natural gas (LNG) terminal, natural gas pipeline, and associated
facilities in the above-referenced docket. The Downeast LNG Project
(Project) would be located in Washington County, Maine.
    The draft EIS was prepared to satisfy the requirements of the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The U.S. Coast Guard; U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers; National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service; U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency; and the Maine Department of Environmental Protection
are cooperating agencies for the development of this EIS. A cooperating
agency has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to
potential environmental impacts associated with the proposal and is
involved in the NEPA analysis.
    Based on the analysis included in the EIS, the FERC staff concludes
construction and operation of the Downeast LNG Project would result in
some adverse environmental impacts. However, most of these impacts
would be reduced to less-than-significant levels with the
implementation of Downeast's proposed mitigation measures and the
additional measures we recommend in the EIS.
    The Project would establish a LNG marine terminal in New England
capable of unloading cargo from LNG vessels, storing up to 320,000
cubic meters of LNG in specially designed tanks, vaporizing the LNG
back into natural gas, and providing an average sendout of 500 million
cubic feet of natural gas per day to the New England region's
interstate pipeline grid. Downeast's proposed 29.8-mile-long pipeline
would transport natural gas from the LNG terminal to an interconnect
point with Maritimes and Northeast Pipeline's L.L.C. (M&NE) existing
pipeline system near the town of Baileyville, Maine. Downeast states
that the Project would provide an additional supply source of natural
gas to meet increasing demand and increase the reliability of the
interstate gas delivery system in New England.
    The draft EIS addresses the potential environmental effects of
construction and operation of the following facilities proposed by
Downeast:
     A new marine terminal that would include a 3,862-foot-long
pier with a single berth and vessel mooring system, intended to handle
LNG vessels ranging from 70,000 to 165,000 cubic meters in capacity,
with future expansion capabilities to handle vessels with 220,000 cubic
meters of cargo capacity;
     two full-containment LNG storage tanks, each with a
nominal usable storage capacity of 160,000 cubic meters;
     LNG vaporization and processing equipment;
     piping, ancillary buildings, safety systems, and other
support facilities;
     a 29.8-mile-long, 30-inch-diameter underground natural gas
pipeline;
     natural gas metering facilities located at the LNG
terminal site; and
     various ancillary facilities including pigging \1\
facilities and three mainline block valves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A ``pig'' is a tool for cleaning and inspecting the inside
of a pipeline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Project would also include the transit of LNG vessels through
both United States and Canadian waters to and from the LNG terminal in
Robbinston, Maine. The intended vessel transit routes include the
waters of the Gulf of Maine, Bay of Fundy, Grand Manan Channel, Head
Harbor Passage,

Friar Roads, Western Passage, and Passamaquoddy Bay. The draft EIS also
includes information regarding potential modifications and expansions
of the M&NE pipeline system to transport the natural gas volumes that
would be supplied by the Downeast sendout pipeline.
    The draft EIS has been placed in the public files of the FERC and
is available for distribution and public inspection at: Federal
Regulatory Energy Commission, Public Reference Room, 888 First St.,
NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Only volume 1 of the draft EIS, containing text of the analysis,
was printed in hard copy. Volume 2, containing additional appendices,
was produced as .pdf files on a compact disk (CD) that can be read by a
computer with a CD-ROM drive. A limited number of hard copies and CDs
of the draft EIS are available from the FERC's Public Reference Room,
identified above. This draft EIS is also available for public viewing
on the FERC's Internet Web site at http://www.ferc.gov via the
eLibrary link, and at project area libraries listed in Appendix A of
the draft EIS.
    Copies of the document have been mailed to Federal, State, and
local government agencies; elected officials; Native American tribes
and regional organizations; local libraries and newspapers; intervenors
in the FERC's proceeding; and other interested parties (i.e.,
individuals and groups who provided scoping comments or asked to remain
on the mailing list). All parties on the mailing list were sent a CD of
the draft EIS. A hard copy was also mailed to those who specifically
requested one.

Comment Procedures and Public Meetings

    Any person wishing to comment on the draft EIS is encouraged to do
so. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects,
reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental
impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be.
To ensure consideration prior to a Commission decision on the proposal,
it is important that your comments be received before July 6, 2009.
Please carefully follow the instructions below so that your comments
are properly recorded.
    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit
your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the
Project Docket Numbers CP07-52-000, CP07-53-000, and CP07-53-001 with
your submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of
comments and has dedicated eFiling expert staff available to assist you
at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (1) You may file your comments electronically by using the Quick
Comment feature, which is located on the Commission's internet Web site
at http://www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings. A Quick
Comment is an easy method for interested persons to submit text-only
comments on a project;
    (2) You may file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature, which is located on the Commission's Internet Web site at
http://www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings. eFiling
involves preparing your submission in the same manner as you would if
filing on paper, and then saving the file on your computer's hard
drive. You will attach that file as your submission. New eFiling users
must first create an account by clicking on ``Sign up'' or
``eRegister.'' You will be asked to select the type of filing you are
making. A comment on a particular project is considered a ``Comment on
a Filing;'' or
    (3) You may file your comments via mail to the Commission by
sending an original and two copies of your letter to: Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE.,
Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
    Label one copy of the comments for the attention of Gas Branch 3,
PJ-11.3. Mail your comments promptly, so that they will be received in
Washington, DC on or before July 6, 2009.
    In addition to or in lieu of sending written comments, we invite
you to attend the public comment meeting we will conduct in the Project
area. The meeting will begin at 7 p.m. (EST), and is scheduled as
follows:
    Date: Tuesday, June 16, 2009.
    Location: Robbinston Grade School Cafeteria 904 U.S. Route 1
Robbinston, Maine<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    This public meeting will be posted on the FERC's calendar located
at http://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx. Interested groups
and individuals are encouraged to attend and present written or oral
comments on the draft EIS. Transcripts of the meetings will be
prepared.
    After the comments are reviewed, any significant new issues are
investigated, and necessary modifications are made to the draft EIS, a
final EIS will be published and distributed. The final EIS will contain
our responses to timely comments filed on the draft EIS that are
related to environmental issues.
    Comments will be considered by the Commission and the cooperating
agencies but will not serve to make the commentor a party to the
proceeding. Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must
file a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (Title 18 CFR 385.214). Only
intervenors have the right to seek rehearing of the Commission's
decision. Further instructions for becoming an intervenor are included
in the User's Guide under the ``e-filing'' link on the Commission's Web
site (http://www.ferc.gov. You do not need intervenor status to have
your comments considered.
    Additional information about the Project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs at 1-866-208-FERC (3372). The
administrative public record for this proceeding to date is on the FERC
Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov. Click on the eLibrary link,
click on ``General Search,'' and enter the docket number excluding the
last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., CP07-52). Be sure
you have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please
contact FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free
at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. 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
rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission 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 the eSubscription
link on the FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp).

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-12076 Filed 5-22-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P