[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 15 (Wednesday, January 25, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8474-8477]
[FR Doc No: 2017-01618]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-79840; File No. SR-ISEGemini-2016-23]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ISE Gemini, LLC; Order Granting
Approval of Proposed Rule Change To Amend ISE Gemini Rule 723 and To
Make Pilot Program Permanent

January 18, 2017.

I. Introduction

    On December 12, 2016, ISE Gemini, LLC (the ``Exchange'' or ``ISE
Gemini'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), 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 amend the eligibility requirements for its
Price Improvement Mechanism (``PIM'' or ``Auction'') and make permanent
those aspects of the PIM that are currently operating on a pilot basis.
The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal
Register on December 19, 2016.\3\ The Commission received no comments
regarding the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79541 (December 13,
2016), 81 FR 91974 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    The Exchange adopted PIM as part of its application to be
registered as a national securities exchange under its previous name of
Topaz Exchange, LLC (``Topaz'').\4\ Pursuant to ISE Gemini Rule 723, an
Electronic Access Member (``EAM'') may electronically submit for
execution an order it represents as agent (``Agency Order'') against
principal interest or against a solicited order for the full size of
the Agency Order, provided it submits the Agency Order for electronic
execution into the PIM (a ``Crossing Transaction''). Parts of the PIM
are currently operating on a pilot basis (``Pilot''),\5\ which is set
to expire on January 18, 2017.\6\ The Exchange proposes to make the
Pilot permanent, and also proposes to amend the Auction eligibility
requirements for certain Agency Orders of less than 50 option
contracts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70050 (July 26,
2013), 78 FR 46622 (August 1, 2013) (File No. 10-209) (``Exchange
Approval Order''). The Exchange's PIM was largely based on a similar
functionality offered by the International Securities Exchange, LLC
(``ISE''). See id. The Exchange subsequently changed its name to ISE
Gemini. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71586 (February 20,
2014), 79 FR 10861 (February 26, 2014) (SR-Topaz-2014-06).
    \5\ Two components of PIM were approved by the Commission on a
pilot basis: (1) the early conclusion of the PIM; and (2) no minimum
size requirement of orders.
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78343 (July 15,
2016), 81 FR 47483 (July 21, 2016) (SR-ISEGemini-2016-07) (``PIM
July 2016 Extension'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. PIM Eligibility Requirements for Agency Orders of Fewer than 50
Contracts

    Currently, the PIM may be initiated if certain conditions are met.
The Crossing Transaction must be entered only at a price that is equal
to or better than the National Best Bid/Offer (``NBBO'') on the
opposite side of the market from the Agency Order, and better than the
limit order or quote on the ISE Gemini order book on the same side of
the Agency Order.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See ISE Gemini Rule 723(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ISE Gemini proposes to amend ISE Gemini Rule 723(b) to require EAMs
to provide at least $0.01 price improvement for an Agency Order if that
order is for less than 50 option contracts and if the difference
between the NBBO is $0.01. For the period beginning January 19, 2017
until a date specified by the Exchange in a Regulatory Information
Circular, which date shall be no later than April 15, 2017, ISE Gemini
will adopt a member conduct standard to implement this

requirement.\8\ Under this provision, ISE Gemini is proposing to amend
the Auction Eligibility Requirements to require that, if the Agency
Order is for less than 50 option contracts, and if the difference
between the NBBO is $0.01, an EAM shall not enter a Crossing
Transaction unless such Crossing Transaction is entered at a price that
is one minimum price improvement increment better than the NBBO on the
opposite side of the market from the Agency Order, and better than any
limit order on the limit order book on the same side of the market as
the Agency Order. This requirement will apply regardless of whether the
Agency Order is for the account of a public customer, or where the
Agency Order is for the account of a broker dealer or any other person
or entity that is not a Public Customer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Exchange notes that its indirect parent company, U.S.
Exchange Holdings, Inc. has been acquired by Nasdaq, Inc. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78119 (June 21, 2016), 81 FR
41611 (June 27, 2016) (SR-ISEGemini-2016-05). Pursuant to this
acquisition, ISE Gemini platforms are migrating to Nasdaq platforms,
including the platform that operates PIM. ISE Gemini intends to
retain the proposed member conduct standard requiring price
improvement for options orders of under 50 contracts where the
difference between the NBBO is $0.01 until the ISE Gemini platforms
and the corresponding symbols are migrated to the platforms operated
by Nasdaq, Inc. See Notice, supra note 3, at 91975 n.7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Failure to provide such price improvement will subject members to
the fines set forth in ISE Rule 1614(d)(4).\9\ The Exchange stated that
it will conduct electronic surveillance of the PIM to ensure that
members comply with the proposed price improvement requirements for
option orders of less than 50 contracts.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ In a separate proposed rule change, ISE is proposing to
adopt similar price improvement requirements for orders of fewer
than 50 contracts for its PIM. As part of that rule change, ISE is
proposing to amend ISE Rule 1614 (Imposition of Fines for Minor Rule
Violations) to add Rule 1614(d)(4), which will provide that,
beginning January 19, 2017, any member who enters an order into PIM
for fewer than 50 contracts, while the National Best Bid or Offer
spread is $0.01, must provide price improvement of at least one
minimum price improvement increment better than the NBBO on the
opposite side of the market from the Agency Order, which increment
may not be smaller than $0.01. Failure to provide such price
improvement will result in members being subject to the following
fines: $500 for the second offense, $1,000 for the third offense,
and $2,500 for the fourth offense. Subsequent offenses will subject
the member to formal disciplinary action. ISE will review violations
on a monthly cycle to assess these violations. The Commission notes
that the ISE proposal was approved in conjunction with this
proposal. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-79829 (January
18, 2017) (SR-ISE-2016-29).
    \10\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 91975-76.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is also proposing a systems-based mechanism to
implement this price improvement requirement, which shall be effective
following the migration of a symbol to INET, the platform operated by
Nasdaq, Inc. that will also operate the PIM.\11\ Under this provision,
if the Agency Order is for less than 50 option contracts, and if the
difference between the NBBO is $0.01, the Crossing Transaction must be
entered at one minimum price improvement increment better than the NBBO
on the opposite side of the market from the Agency Order and better
than the limit order or quote on the ISE Gemini order book on the same
side of the Agency Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See id. at 91976. See also proposed ISE Gemini Rule 723(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange will retain the current requirements for PIM
eligibility in all other instances. Accordingly, if the Agency Order is
for 50 option contracts or more or if the difference between the NBBO
is greater than $0.01, the Crossing Transaction must be entered only at
a price that is equal to or better than the NBBO and better than the
limit order or quote on the ISE Gemini order book on the same side as
the Agency Order.
    The Exchange believes that these changes to PIM may provide
additional opportunities for Agency Orders of fewer than 50 option
contracts to receive price improvement over the NBBO where the
difference in the NBBO is $0.01 and therefore encourage the increased
submission of orders of under 50 option contracts.\12\ The Exchange
notes that the statistics for the current pilot, which include, among
other things, price improvement for orders of fewer than 50 option
contracts under the current Auction eligibility requirements, show
relatively small amounts of price improvement for such orders.\13\ ISE
Gemini believes that the proposed requirements will therefore increase
the price improvement that orders of fewer than 50 option contracts may
receive in PIM.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 91976.
    \13\ See id.
    \14\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Pilot Program

    Two components of the PIM were approved by the Commission on a
pilot basis: (1) The early conclusion of the PIM; \15\ and (2) no
minimum size requirement of orders. The provisions were approved for a
pilot period that currently expires on January 18, 2017.\16\ The
Exchange proposes to have the Pilot approved on a permanent basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See ISE Gemini Rule 723(c)(5) and (d)(4).
    \16\ See PIM July 2016 Extension, supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During the Pilot period, the Exchange submitted certain data
periodically as required by the Commission, to provide supporting
evidence that, among other things, there is meaningful competition for
all size orders, there is significant price improvement available
through the PIM, and that there is an active and liquid market
functioning on the Exchange outside of the Auction mechanism.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Supplementary Material .03 to ISE Gemini Rule 723.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. No Minimum Size Requirement
    Supplemental Material .03 to Rule 723 provides that, as part of the
current Pilot, there will be no minimum size requirement for orders to
be eligible for the Auction. The Exchange believes that the data
gathered since the approval of the Pilot, which it discussed in the
Notice, establishes that there is liquidity and competition both within
the PIM and outside of the PIM, and that there are opportunities for
significant price improvement within the PIM.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 91976-77. See also Exhibit 3
to SR-ISEGemini-2016-23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange compiled price improvement data in orders from January
through June 2016. For January 2016, where the order was on behalf of a
Public Customer, the order was for 50 contracts or less, and ISE Gemini
was at the NBBO, the most contracts traded (4,192) occurred when the
spread was between $0.05 and $0.10.\19\ Of these, the greatest number
of contracts (1,400) received $0.03 price improvement. In comparison, 6
contracts that traded at this spread received no price improvement.
When the spread was $0.01 for this same category, a total of 499
contracts traded; 349 contracts received no price improvement, and 150
received $0.01 price improvement.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ According to the Exchange, this discussion of January 2016
data is illustrative of data that was gathered between January 2016
and July 2016. See Notice, supra note 3, at 91976 n.13. The complete
underlying data for January 2016 through June 2016 was attached as
Exhibit 3 to the Notice.
    \20\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 91977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In comparison, in January 2016, where the order was on behalf of a
Public Customer, and the order was for greater than 50 contracts, and
ISE Gemini was at the NBBO, the most contracts traded (1,495) occurred
where the spread was $0.02. Of those contracts, the greatest number of
contracts (979) received $0.01 price improvement, and 456 contracts
received no price improvement.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In January 2016, where the order was on behalf of a Public
Customer, the order was for 50 contracts or less, and ISE Gemini was
not at the NBBO, the most contracts traded (1,403) occurred when the
spread was between $0.05 and $0.10. Of this category, the greatest
number of contracts (570) received

$0.01 price improvement.\22\ In comparison, when the spread was $0.01
in this same category, a total of 80 contracts traded, and all received
price improvement.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See id.
    \23\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In comparison, in January 2016, where the order was on behalf of a
Public Customer, and order was for greater than 50 contracts, and ISE
Gemini was not at the NBBO, the most contracts traded (4,846) occurred
where the spread was $0.05--$0.10. Of those contracts, the greatest
number of contracts (1,234) received $0.01 price improvement, and 1,008
contracts received no price improvement.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ISE Gemini believes that the data gathered during the Pilot period
indicates that there is meaningful competition in PIM auctions for all
size orders, there is an active and liquid market functioning on the
Exchange outside of the auction mechanism, and that there are
opportunities for significant price improvement for orders executed
through PIM.\25\ The Exchange therefore has requested that the
Commission approve the no-minimum size requirement on a permanent
basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Early Conclusion of the PIM
    Supplemental Material .05 to Rule 723 provides that Rule 723(c)(5)
and Rule 723(d)(4), which relate to the termination of the exposure
period by unrelated orders shall be part of the current Pilot. Rule
723(c)(5) provides that the exposure period will automatically
terminate (i) at the end of the 500 millisecond period,\26\ (ii) upon
the receipt of a market or marketable limit order on the Exchange in
the same series, or (iii) upon the receipt of a nonmarketable limit
order in the same series on the same side of the market as the Agency
Order that would cause the price of the Crossing Transaction to be
outside of the best bid or offer on the Exchange. Rule 723(d)(4)
provides that, when a market order or marketable limit order on the
opposite side of the market from the Agency Order ends the exposure
period, it will participate in the execution of the Agency Order at the
price that is mid-way between the best counter-side interest and the
NBBO, so that both the market or marketable limit order and the Agency
Order receive price improvement. Transactions will be rounded, when
necessary, to the $0.01 increment that favors the Agency Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ The Commission notes that, at the time of the filing of
this proposal, the duration of the exposure period was 500
milliseconds. The Exchange recently received approval to modify the
exposure period to a time period designated by the Exchange of no
less than 100 milliseconds and no more than one second. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79735 (January 4, 2017), 82 FR
3043 (January 10, 2017) (SR-ISEGemini-2016-14).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As with the no minimum size requirement, the Exchange has gathered
data on these three conditions to assess the effect of early PIM
conclusions on the Pilot. For the period from January 2016 through June
2016, there were a total of 65 early terminated Auctions. The number of
orders in early terminated PIM auctions constituted 0.08% of total PIM
orders.\27\ There were a total of 325 contracts that traded through
early terminated Auctions. The number of contracts in early terminated
PIM auctions represented 0.11% of total PIM contracts.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 91977.
    \28\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the data gathered during the Pilot, the Exchange does not
anticipate that any of these conditions will occur with significant
frequency, or will otherwise significantly affect the functioning of
the PIM.\29\ The Exchange therefore has requested that the Commission
approve this aspect of the Pilot on a permanent basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange
and, in particular, with Section 6(b) of the Act.\30\ In particular,
the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\31\ which requires, among other things,
that the rules of a national securities exchange be designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect customers, issuers, brokers and dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). In approving this proposed rule change,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of its proposal, the Exchange provided summary data on
Exhibit 3 of its filing for the period January through June 2016, which
the Exchange and Commission both publicly posted on their respective
Web sites. Among other things, this data is useful in assessing the
level of price improvement in the Auction, in particular for orders of
fewer than 50 contracts; the degree of competition for order flow in
such Auctions; and a comparison of liquidity in the Auctions with
liquidity on the Exchange generally.\32\ Based on the data provided by
the Exchange, the Commission believes that the Exchange's price
improvement auction generally delivers a meaningful opportunity for
price improvement to orders, including orders for fewer than 50
contracts, when the spread in the option is $0.02 or more. At the same
time, as the Exchange has recognized, the data do not demonstrate that
such orders have realized significant price improvement when the NBBO
has a bid/ask differential of $0.01.\33\ Recognizing this, the Exchange
has proposed to amend the Auction eligibility requirements to require
the Initiating Participant to guarantee at least $0.01 of price
improvement for Agency Orders of fewer than 50 contracts where the NBBO
has a bid/ask differential of $0.01, whether or not the Exchange BBO is
the same as the NBBO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See Exhibit 3 to SR-ISEGemini-2016-23.
    \33\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 91976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to modify the Auction eligibility
requirements for orders of fewer than 50 contracts and seek permanent
approval of the Pilot, as amended with the new provision, will, in the
Commission's view, promote opportunities for price improvement for such
orders when the NBBO is $0.01 wide, while continuing to provide
opportunities for price improvement when spreads are wider than $0.01.
    In addition, the Commission has carefully evaluated the Pilot data
and has determined that it would be beneficial to customers and to the
options market as a whole to approve on a permanent basis the
provisions concerning early conclusion of the PIM. The Commission notes
that there have been few instances of early termination of the PIM.
    The Commission believes that, particularly for Auctions for fewer
than 50 contracts when the bid/ask differential is wider than $0.01,
the data provided by the Exchange support its proposal to make the
Pilot permanent. The data demonstrate that the Auction generally
provides price improvement opportunities to orders, including orders of
retail customers and particularly when the bid/ask differential is
wider than $0.01; that there is meaningful competition for orders on
the Exchange; and that there

exists an active and liquid market functioning on the Exchange outside
of the Auction.\34\ The Commission further believes that the proposed
revisions to the eligibility requirements for orders of fewer than 50
contracts with respect to circumstances when the NBBO is no more than
$0.01 wide should help to enhance the operation of the Auction by
providing meaningful opportunities for price improvement in such
circumstances, and should benefit investors and others in a manner that
is consistent with the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See Exhibit 3 to SR-ISEGemini-2016-23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission further notes that, as discussed more fully above,
ISE Gemini is initially proposing to implement is price improvement
requirement for Agency Orders of fewer than 50 option contracts where
the difference in the NBBO is $0.01 with a member conduct standard.\35\
As described in greater detail above, ISE Gemini proposes to enforce
this requirement under ISE Rule 1614(d)(4). The Commission believes
that ISE Gemini's proposed member conduct standard and ISE Rule
1614(d)(4) are reasonable means to implement the price improvement
requirement until implementation of its proposed systems-based
mechanism for this requirement, which will become effective following
the migration of a symbol to INET, the platform operated by Nasdaq,
Inc. that will also operate the PIM. The Commission further notes that
the Exchange has represented that its proposed member conduct standard
will be effective until the migration of all symbols to the INET
platform, which shall be no later than April 15, 2017.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ The Exchange stated that it will conduct electronic
surveillance of the PIM to ensure that members comply with the
proposed price improvement requirements for option orders of fewer
than 50 contracts. See Notice, supra note 3, at 91275-76.
    \36\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 91275 & n.7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, the Commission has determined to approve the Exchange's
proposed revisions to ISE Gemini Rule 723(b) and Supplementary Material
.03 and .05 to ISE Gemini Rule 723, and to approve the Pilot, as
proposed to be modified, on a permanent basis.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\37\ that the proposed rule change (SR-ISEGemini-2016-23), be and
hereby is approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \38\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\38\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-01618 Filed 1-24-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 190 (Friday, September 30, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60819-60820]
[FR Doc No: 2011-25214]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER11-4626-000]

 Mt. Poso Cogeneration Company, 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
Mt. Poso Cogeneration Company, 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 17, 2011.
    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 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 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>.

    Dated: September 26, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-25214 Filed 9-29-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 113 (Thursday, June 12, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33696-33699]
[FR Doc No: 2014-13750]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2014-0301]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone, Tennessee River Mile 4.8 to 5.8; Ledbetter, KY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing an emergency temporary safety
zone for all waters of the Tennessee River, extending the entire

width from mile 4.8 to 5.8. This safety zone is needed to protect
persons, property and infrastructure from the potential damage and
safety hazards associated with structural concerns of the George Rogers
Clark Memorial Bridge, mile 5.3 Tennessee River. Entry into this zone
is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port
(COTP) Ohio Valley or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective without actual notice from June 12, 2014
until June 30, 2014. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice
will be used from the date the rule was signed, April 30, 2014, until
June 12, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
USCG-2014-0301. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the
docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also
visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Lieutenant Dan McQuate, Marine Safety Unit Paducah
Waterways Management Branch, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl F. Collins, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
KYTC Kentucky Transportation Cabinet
MSU Marine Safety Unit
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Regulatory History and Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule.
    On April 30, 2014 the KYTC notified Coast Guard MSU Paducah, KY
that there are structural concerns with the George Rogers Clark
Memorial Bridge at mile 5.3 Tennessee River, creating a hazardous
situation. The visible structural concerns are to the approach spans of
the bridge on the left descending bank, but KYTC is unsure if the
collapse of these spans would negatively impact the channel spans of
the bridge. This situation requires immediate emergency safety measures
to protect persons and property, and a safety zone is in effect to stop
all vessel traffic from transiting from mile 4.8 to mile 5.8 Tennessee
River. Deviation from this rule may be requested from the Captain of
the Port and requests to deviate and transit through this area may be
permitted on a case-by-case basis. Once a structural analysis of the
bridge is completed, the safety zone will be canceled or modified to
allow vessel traffic to transit through spans of the bridge that are
deemed to pose no risk to the public. Delaying this rulemaking to
provide a comment period before implementing the necessary safety zone
would be contrary to the public interest by delaying the immediate
action needed to protect persons, property and infrastructure from the
potential damage and safety hazards associated with the structural
concerns of this bridge.
    For the same reasons, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard
finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than
30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Providing 30 days
notice and delaying its effective date would be contrary to public
interest because immediate action is needed to protect persons,
property and infrastructure from the potential damage and safety
hazards associated with structural concerns of the George Rogers Clark
Memorial Bridge at mile 5.3 Tennessee River.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis and authorities for this rule are found in 33
U.S.C. 1231, 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33
CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat.
2064; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which
collectively authorize the Coast Guard to establish and define
regulatory safety zones.
    The purpose of this safety zone is to protect persons and vessels
from the structurally deficient bridge at mile 5.3 Tennessee River. The
approach spans of the bridge have begun to collapse, and this poses
significant safety hazards to vessels in the area. For this reason, the
Coast Guard is prohibiting entry into this zone by all vessels during
the enforcement period unless authorized by the COTP Ohio Valley or a
designated representative. Upon a structural analysis of this bridge by
KYTC, the Coast Guard may change the exact restrictions for operating
around this bridge.

C. Discussion of the Rule

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the
Tennessee River from mile 4.8 to 5.8, extending the entire width of the
river. Entry into this zone is prohibited to all vessels and persons
unless specifically authorized by the COTP Sector Ohio Valley or a
designated representative.
    This rule is effective and enforceable with actual notice on April
30, 2014 through June 30, 2014, or until a structural analysis of the
bridge can be completed, and deemed to no longer pose a threat to the
public. At that time the safety zone will be canceled or modified to
allow vessel traffic to transit through spans of the bridge that are
deemed to pose no risk to the public. Any exceptions to these
operational restrictions must be authorized by the COTP Ohio Valley or
a designated representative. The COTP or a designated representative
may be contacted by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on these statutes and executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. This rule establishes a
temporary safety zone on all waters of the Tennessee River, extending
the entire width from mile 4.8 to 5.8. Notifications to the marine
community will be made through Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNM). The
impacts on routine navigation are expected to be minimal as the
restrictions will be enforced only as necessary while a

structural analysis of the George Rogers Clark Memorial Bridge, mile
5.3 Tennessee River, is conducted. After this analysis, the safety zone
will be canceled or modified to allow vessel traffic to transit through
spans of the bridge that are deemed to pose no risk to the public.
Additionally, deviation from the safety zone restriction may be
requested from the COTP Ohio Valley or designated representative and
will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The Coast Guard
certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be
small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit
the Tennessee River from mile 4.8 to 5.8 from April 30, 2014 through
June 30, 2014. This safety zone will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Traffic in this area
is limited to almost entirely recreational vessels and commercial
towing vessels, and the restrictions will be enforced only as necessary
while a structural analysis of the George Rogers Clark Memorial Bridge
is being completed. When this is completed, the safety zone will be
canceled or modified to allow vessel traffic to transit through spans
of the bridge that are deemed to pose no risk to the public. Deviation
from the safety zone restriction may be requested from the COTP Ohio
Valley or designated representative and will be considered on a case-
by-case basis.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
above.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined
that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

8. Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

9. Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

10. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does 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.

12. Energy Effects

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually
or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.
This rule involves the creation of a safety zone in response to an
emergency situation. The safety zone is implemented to protect persons
and property due to a structurally deficient bridge at mile 5.3
Tennessee River. This rule is categorically excluded from further
review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant
Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical
exclusion determination will be made available as indicated under the
ADDRESSES section.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping

requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703;
50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub.
L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. A new temporary Sec.  165.T08-0301 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T08-0301  Safety Zone; Tennessee River MM 4.8 to 5.8,
Ledbetter, KY.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All waters of
the Tennessee River from mile 4.8 to 5.8, extending the entire width of
the river.
    (b) Effective dates. This rule is effective without actual notice
from June 12, 2014 until June 30, 2014. For the purposes of
enforcement, actual notice will be used from the date the rule was
signed, April 30, 2014, until June 12, 2014. When a structural analysis
of the George Rogers Clark Memorial Bridge can be completed, and deemed
to no longer pose a threat to the public the safety zone will be
canceled or modified to allow vessel traffic to transit through spans
of the bridge that are deemed to pose no risk to the public.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23 of this part, entry into this zone during the effective
period is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP Ohio Valley or a
designated representative.
    (2) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of
the COTP and designated on-scene patrol personnel. On-scene patrol
personnel include commissioned, warrant, and petty officers of the U.S.
Coast Guard.
    (3) Persons or vessels may request deviation from the safety zone
restriction prescribed under paragraph (c)(1) of this section from the
COTP Ohio Valley or a designated representative who may be a
commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the Coast Guard. The COTP
Ohio Valley may be contacted by telephone at 1-800-253-7465 or on VHF-
FM channel 16.
    (d) Informational broadcasts. The COTP, Ohio Valley or a designated
representative will inform the public through broadcast notices to
mariners (BNM) of the effective period for the safety zone and of any
changes in the effective period, size, or restrictions of the safety
zone.

    Dated: April 30, 2014.
R.V. Timme,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Ohio Valley.
[FR Doc. 2014-13750 Filed 6-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: September 12, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 176)]
[Notices]
[Page 52095-52096]
[DOCID:fr12se07-67]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

September 5, 2007.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
    Docket Numbers: RP07-574-001.
    Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Northern Natural Gas Company submits Substitute Fourth
Revised Sheet 263G to FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume 1,
effective 11/1/07.
    Filed Date: 08/31/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070904-0301.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 12, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP07-606-001.
    Applicants: Questar Pipeline Company.
    Description: Questar Pipeline Company resubmits its Fifth Revised
Sheet 171, et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume 1-A.
    Filed Date: 08/31/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070904-0303.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 12, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP07-666-000.
    Applicants: Colorado Interstate Gas Company.
    Description: Colorado Interstate Gas Company submits First Revised
Sheet 380K, et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume 1, to
become effective 10/1/07.
    Filed Date: 08/31/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070904-0304.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 12, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP07-667-000.
    Applicants: Colorado Interstate Gas Company.
    Description: Colorado Interstate Gas Company submits Third Revised
Sheet 229A.01 to its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume 1, effective
10/1/07.
    Filed Date: 08/31/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070904-0305.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 12, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP07-668-000.
    Applicants: Colorado Interstate Gas Company.
    Description: Colorado Interstate Gas Company submits Forty-Seventh
Revised Sheet 11A, et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume 1,
to effective 10/1/07.
    Filed Date: 08/31/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070904-0306.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 12, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP07-670-000.
    Applicants: Trunkline Gas Company, LLC.
    Description: Trunkline Gas Company, LLC submits First Revised Sheet
0, et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume 1, effective 10/1/
07.
    Filed Date: 08/31/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070904-0308.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 12, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP07-671-000.
    Applicants: Dauphin Island Gathering Partners.
    Description: Dauphin Island Gathering Partners submits Sixth
Revised Sheet 7, et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume 1, to
be effective 10/1/07.
    Filed Date: 08/31/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070904-0309.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 12, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP07-672-000.
    Applicants: Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company submits Nineteenth
Revised Sheet 4, et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume 1,
effective 10/1/07.
    Filed Date: 08/31/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070904-0310.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 12, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP07-673-000.
    Applicants: National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation.
    Description: National Fuel Gas Supply Corp submits its Thirty First
Revised Sheet 8, et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Fourth Revised Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 08/31/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070904-0311.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 12, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP07-674-000.
    Applicants: Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company, LP.
    Description: Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co, LP submits its
Fifteenth Revised Sheet 4, et al. to its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised
Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 08/31/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070904-0312.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 12, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP07-675-000.
    Applicants: Portland Natural Gas Transmission System.
    Description: Portland Natural Gas Transmission System submits its
Second Revised Sheet 100, et al. to its FERC Gas Tariff to establish a
revised Annual Charge Adjustment charge.
    Filed Date: 08/31/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070904-0314.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 12, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP07-676-000.
    Applicants: Sea Robin Pipeline Company, LLC.
    Description: Sea Robin Pipeline Co, LLC submits its 1st Rev Second
Revised Sheet 5, et al. to its FERC Gas Tariff, second revised Volume
1.
    Filed Date: 08/31/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070904-0313.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 12, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP07-677-000.
    Applicants: Southern LNG, Inc.
    Description: Southern LNG, Inc submits its Eighteenth Revised Sheet
5, et al. to its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 08/31/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070904-0315.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 12, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP07-678-000.
    Applicants: Southern Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Southern Natural Gas Co submits its Sixty-Eighth
Revised Sheet 14, et al. to its FERC Gas Tariff, Seventh Revised Volume
1.
    Filed Date: 08/31/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070904-0316.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 12, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP07-679-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Gas Storage Company.
    Description: Southern Gas Storage Co submits its 1st Rev Nineteenth
Revised Sheet 5, et al. to its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 08/31/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070904-0317.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 12, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP07-680-000.
    Applicants: Trunkline Gas Company, LLC.
    Description: Trunkline Gas Co, LLC submits its Fourteenth Revised
Sheet 10, et al. to its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 08/31/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070904-0318.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 12, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP07-681-000.
    Applicants: Trunkline LNG Company, LLC.
    Description: Trunkline LNG Co, LLC submits its Thirteenth Revised
Sheet 5, et al. to its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume 1-A.
    Filed Date: 08/31/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070904-0319.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 12, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP07-682-000.
    Applicants: Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company, LP.
    Description: Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co, LP submits its First
Revised Sheet 215, et al. to its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 08/31/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070904-0320.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 12, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP07-683-000.
    Applicants: Sea Robin Pipeline Company, LLC.
    Description: Sea Robin Pipeline Co, LLC submits its First Revised
Sheet 0, et al. to its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 08/31/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070904-0321.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 12, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP07-684-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Gas Storage Company.
    Description: Southwest Gas Storage Co submits its Second Revised
Sheet 0, et al. to its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 08/31/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070904-0322.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 12, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP07-685-000.
    Applicants: Trunkline LNG Company, LLC.
    Description: Trunkline LNG Co, LLC submits its Second Revised Sheet
171, et al. to its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Volume 1-A.
    Filed Date: 08/31/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070904-0323.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 12, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP96-312-166.
    Applicants: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company.
    Description: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company submits Gas
Transportation Agreement with PSEG Energy Resources and Trade, LLC etc.
    Filed Date: 08/31/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070904-0302.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 12, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP97-81-041.
    Applicants: Kinder Morgan Interstate Gas Trans, LLC.
    Description: Kinder Morgan Interstate Gas Transmission, LLC submits
Sixteenth Revised Sheet 4G.01, et al. to its FERC Gas Tariff, Fourth
Revised Volume 1-A, effective 9/1/07.
    Filed Date: 08/31/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070831-0085.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 12, 2007.

    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.,
Acting Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-17914 Filed 9-11-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P