[Federal Register: September 21, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 183)]
[Notices]
[Page 55237-55239]
[DOCID:fr21se06-86]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54443; File No. SR-CBOE-2006-77]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change Extending Pilot Programs for Remote Market-Makers and e-
DPMs

September 14, 2006.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on September 11, 2006, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``CBOE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'' or ``SEC'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by
the CBOE. The Exchange filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial''
proposed rule change pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CBOE proposes to extend the pilots allowing Remote Market-Makers
(``RMMs'') and e-DPMs to have up to one affiliated Market-Maker trade
in classes assigned to the RMM and e-DPM, respectively. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com
), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary and at the

Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend CBOE Rules 8.4(c)(i) and 8.93(vii)
to extend the pilot programs allowing an RMM and e-DPM the option to
have up to one separate affiliated Market-Maker physically present in
the trading crowds where it operates as an RMM or e-DPM, respectively
(such Market-Makers would be required to trade on a separate
membership). The pilots would be extended from September 14, 2006 until
March 14, 2007.
    In July of 2003, the SEC approved the e-DPM program, including the
pilot program.\5\ The pilot allows e-DPM firms to maintain a physical
presence in the trading crowd through an affiliated Market-Maker who
would also be able to stream a quote. The pilot, however, limits the
number of separate affiliates per trading crowd to one.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50003 (July 12,
2004), 69 FR 43028 (July 19, 2004) (SR-CBOE-2004-24).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In March of 2005, the SEC approved the RMM program, including the
pilot program.\6\ The pilot allows RMM firms to maintain a physical
presence in the trading crowd through an affiliated Market-Maker who
would also be able to stream a quote. This pilot also limits the number
of separate affiliates per trading crowd to one.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51366 (March 14,
2005), 70 FR 13217 (March, 18, 2005) (SR-CBOE-2004-75).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CBOE will be sending the Commission, under separate cover, data
relating to: (1) The size of the orders that RMMs and affiliated
Market-Makers both trade with remotely; (2) the price and size of the
RMM's and the affiliated Market-Maker's respective quotes; (3) the
price and size of quotes of other participants in the classes where an
RMM and an affiliate are quoting; and (4) a breakdown of how orders are
allocated to the RMM, the affiliated Market-Maker, and any other
participants.
    In addition, CBOE will be sending the Commission, under separate
cover, data relating to: (1) The size of the orders that e-DPMs and
affiliated Market-Makers both trade with electronically; (2) the price
and size of the e-DPM's and the affiliated Market-Maker's respective
quotes; (3) the price and size of quotes of other participants in the
classes where an e-DPM and an affiliate are quoting; and (4) a
breakdown of how orders are allocated to the e-DPM, the affiliated
Market-Maker, and any other participants.
    The date chosen to extend the pilot programs for RMMs and e-DPMs is
the same, which will allow the Commission to evaluate both pilot
programs simultaneously.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations under the Act applicable to a
national securities exchange and, in particular, the requirements of
section 6(b) of the Act.\7\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of section
6(b)(5) \8\ that the rules of an exchange be designed to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

    The Exchange neither received nor solicited written comments on the
proposal.

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

    Because the foregoing rule does not (i) significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest, provided that the Exchange has given the
Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule
change prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change or such
shorter time as designated by the Commission, the proposed rule change
has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \9\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
    Under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) of the Act,\11\ the proposal does not
become operative for 30 days after the date of its filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has
requested that the Commission accelerate the 30-day operative date. The
Commission, consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest, has determined to accelerate the 30-day operative date to
allow the pilots to continue without interruption.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \12\ For purposes only of accelerating the 30-day operative
period for this proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed
rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15
U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-CBOE-2006-77 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2006-77. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the

Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the
Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
CBOE. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
CBOE-2006-77 and should be submitted on or before October 12, 2006.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

J. Lynn Taylor,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 06-7843 Filed 9-20-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 174 (Tuesday, September 9, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53514-53517]
[FR Doc No: 2014-21427]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0007]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 52 individuals from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs). They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for
various reasons. The exemptions will enable these individuals to
operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce without
meeting the prescribed vision requirement in one eye. The Agency has
concluded that granting these exemptions will provide a level of safety
that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained
without the exemptions for these CMV drivers.

DATES: The exemptions were granted on August 8, 2014. The exemptions
expire on August 8, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elaine M. Papp, R.N., Chief, Medical
Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have questions
regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Docket
Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov and/or Room W12-140 on the
ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of DOT's dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, or other
entity). You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the Federal
Docket Management System (FDMS) published in the Federal Register on
January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316).

II. Background

    On July 28, 2014, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of exemption
applications from certain individuals, and requested comments from the
public (79 FR 38652). That notice listed 52 applicants' case histories.
The 52 individuals applied for exemptions from the vision requirement
in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) for drivers who operate CMVs in interstate
commerce.
    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
for a 2-year period if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that
would be achieved absent such exemption.'' The statute also allows the
Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period.
Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated the 52 applications on their merits
and made a determination to grant exemptions to each of them.

III. Vision and Driving Experience of the Applicants

    The vision requirement in the FMCSRs provides:
    A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor
vehicle if that person has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40
(Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity
separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective
lenses, distant binocular acuity of a least 20/40 (Snellen) in both
eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least
70[deg] in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to
recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing red, green,
and amber (49 CFR 391.41(b)(10)).
    FMCSA recognizes that some drivers do not meet the vision
requirement but have adapted their driving to accommodate their vision
limitation and demonstrated their ability to drive safely. The 52
exemption applicants listed in this notice are unable to meet the
vision requirement in one eye for various reasons, including central
retinal vein occlusion, amblyopia, histoplasmosis, misshapen pupil,
detached retina, prosthetic eye, strabismus, high myopia, vision loss,
optic nerve atrophy, central scar, corneal scar, refractive amblyopia,
complete loss of vision, macular scar, macular hole, glaucoma, chronic
central serous chorioretinopathy, early polypoidal choroidal
vasculopathy, subforeal choroidal neovascular membrane, bilateral
intermediate uveitis, optic nerve hypoplasia, aphakia, optic nerve
pallor, cellophane retinopathy, iris rupture, macular degeneration,
longstanding optic nerve atrophy, optic atrophy, and strabismic
amblyopia. In most cases, their eye conditions were not recently
developed. Twenty-nine of the applicants were born with their vision
impairments or have had them since childhood.
    The 23 individuals that sustained their vision conditions as adults
have had them for a period of 2 to 50 years.
    Although each applicant has one eye which does not meet the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), each has at least 20/40 corrected
vision in the other eye, and in a doctor's opinion, has sufficient
vision to perform all the tasks necessary to operate a CMV. Doctors'
opinions are supported by the applicants' possession of valid
commercial driver's licenses (CDLs) or non-CDLs to operate CMVs. Before
issuing CDLs, States subject drivers to knowledge and skills tests
designed to evaluate their qualifications to operate a CMV.
    All of these applicants satisfied the testing requirements for
their State of residence. By meeting State licensing requirements, the
applicants demonstrated their ability to operate a CMV, with their
limited vision, to the satisfaction of the State.
    While possessing a valid CDL or non-CDL, these 52 drivers have been
authorized to drive a CMV in intrastate commerce, although their vision
disqualified them from driving in interstate commerce. They have driven
CMVs with their limited vision in careers ranging from 2 to 48 years.
In the past 3 years, none of the drivers was involved in crashes and
four were convicted for moving violations in a CMV.
    The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the July 8, 2014
notice (79 FR 38652).

IV. Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) if the exemption is
likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would
be achieved without the exemption. Without the exemption, applicants
will continue to be restricted to intrastate driving. With the
exemption, applicants can drive in interstate commerce. Thus, our
analysis focuses on whether an equal or greater level of safety is
likely to be achieved by permitting each of these drivers to drive in
interstate commerce as opposed to restricting him or her to driving in
intrastate commerce.
    To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA
considered the medical reports about the applicants' vision as well as
their driving records and experience with the vision deficiency.
    To qualify for an exemption from the vision requirement, FMCSA
requires a person to present verifiable evidence that he/she has driven
a commercial vehicle safely with the vision deficiency for the past 3
years. Recent driving performance is especially important in evaluating
future safety, according to several research studies designed to
correlate past and future driving performance. Results of these studies
support the principle that the best predictor of future performance by
a driver is his/her past record of crashes and traffic violations.
Copies of the studies may be found at Docket Number FMCSA-1998-3637.
    FMCSA believes that it can properly apply the principle to
monocular drivers because data from the Federal Highway
Administration's (FHWA)

former waiver study program clearly demonstrate the driving performance
of experienced monocular drivers in the program is better than that of
all CMV drivers collectively (See 61 FR 13338, 13345, March 26, 1996).
The fact that experienced monocular drivers demonstrated safe driving
records in the waiver program supports a conclusion that other
monocular drivers, meeting the same qualifying conditions as those
required by the waiver program, are likely to have adapted to their
vision deficiency and will continue to operate safely.
    The first major research correlating past and future performance
was done in England by Greenwood and Yule in 1920. Subsequent studies,
building on that model, concluded that crash rates for the same
individual exposed to certain risks for two different time periods vary
only slightly (See Bates and Neyman, University of California
Publications in Statistics, April 1952). Other studies demonstrated
theories of predicting crash proneness from crash history coupled with
other factors. These factors--such as age, sex, geographic location,
mileage driven and conviction history--are used every day by insurance
companies and motor vehicle bureaus to predict the probability of an
individual experiencing future crashes (See Weber, Donald C.,
``Accident Rate Potential: An Application of Multiple Regression
Analysis of a Poisson Process,'' Journal of American Statistical
Association, June 1971). A 1964 California Driver Record Study prepared
by the California Department of Motor Vehicles concluded that the best
overall crash predictor for both concurrent and nonconcurrent events is
the number of single convictions. This study used 3 consecutive years
of data, comparing the experiences of drivers in the first 2 years with
their experiences in the final year.
    Applying principles from these studies to the past 3-year record of
the 52 applicants, none of the drivers was involved in crashes and four
were convicted of moving violations in a CMV. All the applicants
achieved a record of safety while driving with their vision impairments
demonstrating the likelihood that they have adapted their driving
skills to accommodate their condition. As the applicants' ample driving
histories with their vision deficiencies are good predictors of future
performance, FMCSA concludes their ability to drive safely can be
projected into the future.
    We believe that the applicants' intrastate driving experience and
history provide an adequate basis for predicting their ability to drive
safely in interstate commerce. Intrastate driving, like interstate
operations, involves substantial driving on highways on the interstate
system and on other roads built to interstate standards. Moreover,
driving in congested urban areas exposes the driver to more pedestrian
and vehicular traffic than exists on interstate highways. Faster
reaction to traffic and traffic signals is generally required because
distances between them are more compact. These conditions tax visual
capacity and driver response just as intensely as interstate driving
conditions. The veteran drivers in this proceeding have operated CMVs
safely under those conditions for at least 3 years, most for much
longer. Their experience and driving records lead us to believe that
each applicant is capable of operating in interstate commerce as safely
as he/she has been performing in intrastate commerce. Consequently,
FMCSA finds that exempting these applicants from the vision requirement
in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to
that existing without the exemption. For this reason, the Agency is
granting the exemptions for the 2-year period allowed by 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315 to the 52 applicants listed in the notice of July 8,
2014 (79 FR 38652).
    We recognize that the vision of an applicant may change and affect
his/her ability to operate a CMV as safely as in the past. As a
condition of the exemption, therefore, FMCSA will impose requirements
on the 52 individuals consistent with the grandfathering provisions
applied to drivers who participated in the Agency's vision waiver
program.
    Those requirements are found at 49 CFR 391.64(b) and include the
following: (1) That each individual be physically examined every year
(a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in
the better eye continues to meet the requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10) and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the
individual is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2)
that each individual provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or
optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual
medical examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the
annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the
driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's
qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must have a
copy of the certification when driving, for presentation to a duly
authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.

V. Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received two comments in this proceeding. The comments are
discussed below.
    Gary Baumfalk, Herb Mattson, and Brenda Mattson are in favor of
granting Ronnie L. Henry an exemption.

IV. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 52 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts the following drivers from the vision requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above (49 CFR
391.64(b)):

Don R. Alexander (OR)
Jimmy A. Baker (TX)
Robert E. Bebout (OH)
Frank B. Belenchia, Jr. (TN)
Ricky W. Bettes (TX)
Thomas J. Bommer (ND)
Antonio A. Calixto (MN)
James W. Carter, Jr. (KS)
Ronald G. Daniels (MO)
Larry G. Davis (TN)
Michael C. Doheny (CT)
William R. Evridge (KY)
George P. Ford (NC)
Lawrence A. Fox (WI)
Donald H. Fuller (NY)
Viktor V. Goluda (SC)
Todd M. Harguth (MN)
Dennis W. Helgeson (MN)
Ronnie L. Henry (KS)
Clarence K. Hill (NC)
James Holmes (GA)
Johnny L. Irving (MS)
Garfield J. Johnson (NC)
Kevin L. Jones (GA)
Michael L. Kautz (CA)
Keith A. Kelley (ME)
Stetson W. King (FL)
Bradley E. Loggins (AL)
Joe C. Mason (AR)
David L. Miller (OH)
Earl L. Mokma (MI)
Timothy W. Nappier (MI)
Donald L. Nisbet (WA)
Jace E. Nixon (IA)
Don R. Padley (MO)
David T. Perkins (NY)
Donald W. Rich (IL)
Joaquin C. Rodriguez (NM)
Harry W. Root (MN)
David A. Shaw (CA)
Kenneth C. Smith (MS)
Paul W. Sorenson (UT)
Randall H. Tempel (MT)
Christopher P. Thornby (MN)
Cory J. Tivnan (WA)
Melvin V. VanMeter (PA)
Kent J. VanRoekel (MN)
Wilbert Walden (NC)
Patrick J. Ward (NJ)
Ricky W. Witt (IA)
John D. Woods (MI)
Zachary J. Workman (ID)

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption
will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The
exemption will be revoked if: (1) The person fails to comply with the
terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted
in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted;
or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the
goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
    If the exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year
period, the person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in
effect at that time.

    Issued on: August 28, 2014.
 Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-21427 Filed 9-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: November 5, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 213)]
[Notices]
[Page 62459-62460]
[DOCID:fr05no07-39]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket OR07-5-000]

ExxonMobil Oil Corporation, Complainant v. Calnev Pipe Line LLC,
Kinder Morgan GP Inc., Kinder Morgan Inc., Respondents; Notice of
Amended Complaint

October 29, 2007.
    Take notice that on October 18, 2007, ExxonMobil Oil Corporation
(ExxonMobil) tendered for filing its First Amended Complaint against
Calnev Pipe Line LLC, Kinder Morgan GP, Inc., and Kinder Morgan Inc.
    ExxonMobil states that copies of the complaint were served on all
respondents.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

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

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

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on November 19, 2007.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-21653 Filed 11-2-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P