the expiration date of the energy and/or capacity agreement between
the applicant utility and each potentially affected qualifying
facility. All potentially affected qualifying facilities shall
include:
* * * * *

    120. Additionally, in reviewing the regulations adopted in the
Final Rule, we have discovered a mistake in Sec.  292.310(d)(3) that we
will correct here. The applicant's ``long-term transmission plan''
referred to in Sec.  292.310(d)(3) was intended to be information
required to be filed with an application. Therefore the applicant's
``long-term transmission plan'' is redesignated as Sec.
292.310(d)(3)(i). Also, in Sec.  292.310(d)(3)(vi), the term
``available transmission capacity (ATC)'' will be corrected to state
``available transfer capability (ATC).'' The new Sec.  292.310(d)(3) is
amended to read as follows:

    (3) Transmission Studies and related information, including:
    (i) The applicant's long-term transmission plan, conducted by
applicant, or the RTO, ISO or other relevant entity;
    (ii) Transmission constraints by path, element or other level of
comparable detail that have occurred and/or are known and expected
to occur, and any proposed mitigation including transmission
construction plans;
    (iii) Levels of congestion, if available;
    (iv) Relevant system impact studies for the generation
interconnections, already completed;
    (v) Other information pertinent to showing whether transfer
capability is available; and
    (vi) The appropriate link to applicant's OASIS, if any, from
which a qualifying facility may obtain applicant's available
transfer capability (ATC) information.

    121. Finally, Industrial Parties asks us to clarify that if a QF
later seeks to reinstate the purchase obligation pursuant to Sec.
292.311, the electric utility, if it chooses to answer the QF's
petition to reinstate, needs to provide current data, and not rely on
the data it used to originally justify termination of the mandatory
purchase obligation. We decline to make a generic determination here on
this matter. If an electric utility answers the QF's petition, it is
free to

decide what information to file so as to present its best arguments,
based on the content of the QF's filing, the amount of time since the
prior proceeding and any indications of changed circumstances in the
interim. Our decision on whether to reinstate the purchase obligation
will be based on all of the information presented.

D. Obligation To Sell

    122. Section 210(m)(5) of PURPA removes the requirement that an
electric utility sell electric energy to any QF if the Commission finds
that: ``Competing retail electric suppliers are willing and able to
sell and deliver electric energy to the qualifying cogeneration
facility or qualifying small power production facility; and the
electric utility is not required by State law to sell electric energy
in its service territory.''
    123. In the Final Rule, the Commission clarified that lifting the
obligation from a particular utility to purchase electric energy from a
QF did not relieve such utility of its obligation to sell supplemental,
backup, standby and maintenance power to the QF. The Commission
explained that any finding under section 210(m)(5) would be made under
a separate standard and in a separate proceeding pursuant to Sec.
292.312 of the Commission's regulations. The Commission emphasized that
it would strictly interpret the statutory language in such proceedings,
noting in particular the reference to ``competing retail electric
providers'' in section 210(m)(5). The Commission concluded that the
reference required a finding that the QF has available at least two
competing suppliers who are not affiliated with the interconnecting
utility.
Requests for Rehearing
    124. Industrial Parties request that the Commission condition
releasing electric suppliers from their obligation to sell standby and
backup power on a finding that a competitive market for power exists.
Although utilities in the organized markets may assert that there are
multiple retail providers, Industrial Parties contend that in many
cases the providers have little capacity to serve the QF profile or
would attach a large premium to the price given their interest in
serving a stable load. They argue that some utility or other supplier
being willing to sell a QF power at some exorbitant price does not
satisfy the Commission's duty under PURPA to see that QFs are not
exploited and under the FPA to ensure that rates are just and
reasonable rates. Industrial Parties also assert one or two suppliers
do not make a competitive market and that rates paid by QFs cannot be
just and reasonable unless the Commission finds that market power
cannot be exercised by those suppliers.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ Industrial Parties at P 19-20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commission Determination
    125. We deny Industrial Parties' request to condition termination
of the sales obligation on the existence of a competitive market for
replacement power. We continue to believe a strict interpretation of
section 210(m)(5) is appropriate in response to requests to terminate
the obligation to sell standby and backup power to QFs. All the statute
requires is a finding that ``competing retail electric suppliers are
willing and able to sell and deliver electric energy to'' the QF.
Competing retail electric suppliers implies two or more sellers, and
the word competing suggests some level of competition between them. The
requirement that the suppliers be willing and able to deliver also
appears to require sufficient capacity to actually make sales.
    126. In proceedings on applications requesting termination of the
sales obligation under Sec.  292.312 of the Commission's regulations,
QFs opposing termination of an electric utility's obligation to sell
may certainly argue that current practices in a particular market may
provide a basis for the Commission to find that there are no
``competing retail electric suppliers'' in some instances. We will
decline to rule generically on such issues in this rulemaking.
    127. We also reject the Industrial Parties' request to condition
relief under section 210(m)(5) on a finding that rates for replacement
power are reasonable. We affirm our decision in the Final Rule that the
rates for retail service are beyond the Commission's jurisdiction. The
Industrial Parties are simply wrong to imply that the Commission must
first find a competitive retail market before terminating an electric
utility's obligation to sell power to a QF. That argument is based on
the same false premise that this Commission is responsible for setting
retail rates. Section 210(m) does not shift responsibility for setting
or maintaining appropriate retail rates from the States to this
Commission. Rather, section 210(m)(5) requires the Commission, before
it terminates an electric utility's obligation to sell electric energy
to a QF, to find that ``competing retail electric suppliers are willing
and able to sell and deliver electric energy to the'' QF, and that
``the electric utility is not required by State law to sell electric
energy in its service territory.'' Section 210(m)(5) does not require
this Commission to pass judgment on State-approved retail rates.

E. Existing Rights and Remedies

Background
    128. Section 210(m)(6) of PURPA protects the rights and remedies
under a contract or obligation in effect or pending approval before a
state regulatory authority. In the Final Rule, the Commission
interpreted the term ``obligation'' as a ``legally enforceable
obligation,'' which is established through a state's implementation of
PURPA. The Commission stated that a QF that had initiated, prior to
date of enactment of section 210(m) (i.e., August 8, 2005), a state
PURPA proceeding that may result in a contract or legally enforceable
obligation would be considered to have triggered an ``obligation'' with
an electric utility regarding section 210(m)(6).
    129. The Commission found that, when a QF contract terminates by
its own accord, an electric utility would not be compelled to enter
into a new, successor contract with the QF if the purchase requirement
has been terminated for the QF. As long as there is mutual agreement
between a QF and the electric utility to terminate a contract, the
electric utility is not compelled to enter into another contract with
the QF. The Commission stated that nothing in the Final Rule was
intended to abrogate existing contracts. The Commission noted, however,
that there may be contracts containing provisions that provide that
legislation such as EPAct 2005, or a Final Rule such as this one,
trigger termination of the contract. To the extent the parties to a
contract cannot agree whether a termination clause has been triggered,
the Commission determined that the issue would be best determined in an
individual case-specific proceeding in which the particulars of the
contract can be examined.
Requests for Rehearing
    130. Deere argues that clarification is required to preserve state
law processes as creating legally enforceable obligations in the
context of section 210(m)(1). Deere contends that language in paragraph
213 of the Final Rule indicates that an obligation is triggered prior
to the utility applying for relief of the PURPA purchase requirement if
a QF ``has initiated a state's PURPA proceeding that may result in a
contract or legally enforceable contract or obligation.'' Deere argues
that the phrase ``state's PURPA proceeding'' is too narrow and should
be broadened

because it does not recognize that a ``legally enforceable obligation''
can be created under state law processes which do not involve a
docketed state proceeding, such as issuance of regulations.
    131. Deere also notes that some states have adopted PURPA
implementation approaches that require QFs to first start construction,
if not complete it, before an obligation is created in connection with
section 210(m). Deere argues that the Commission should therefore
clarify that a QF located in a ``build first'' state triggers a legally
enforceable obligation if, prior to the time of the utility PURPA
relief application, it has already begun construction. Deere argues
that otherwise, QFs that are nearly complete in the construction will
be unfairly penalized and the significant capital resources they have
committed will be impaired.
    132. OG&E asks the Commission to clarify that it is not prejudging
when--or if--a QF's state PURPA application gives rise to a legally
enforceable obligation under PURPA. OG&E contends that the Commission
has consistently held that it is for the states, not the Commission, to
determine ``the specific parameters of individual QF power purchase
agreements, including the date at which a legally enforceable
obligation is incurred under state law.'' \56\ OG&E states that
presuming that a section 210(m)(1) ``obligation'' exists as of the date
a QF files a state application that ``may'' lead to a legally
enforceable obligation is inconsistent with how many states address
this issue. OG&E adds that the Commission should also clarify that it
is not dictating what factors the states can consider when evaluating
whether a QF has established a legally enforceable obligation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ OG&E Request for Rehearing at 5 (citing Metropolitan Edison
Co., 72 FERC ] 61,015 at 61,050 (1995)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    133. OG&E asks that the Commission clarify that a utility has the
opportunity to respond to a purported legally enforceable obligation by
making a section 210(m) filing particularly if the state legally
enforceable obligation filing was made between August 8, 2005 and the
effective date of the Final Rule, as may be revised on rehearing. OG&E
contends that the utility should be able to respond by filing a section
210(m)(1) application with the Commission.
    134. OG&E also asks that the Commission establish a formal process
that allows section 210(m)(1) issues to be evaluated in response to a
state PURPA ``obligation'' filing. It argues that a QF attempting to
establish a legally enforceable obligation should be required to
provide the utility with formal notice of such a filing, and that
within sixty days of such notice, the utility must file the necessary
application to satisfy the market criteria. OG&E argues that this
opportunity to rebut an obligation is essential where a QF seeks to
establish a state-mandated obligation between January 19, 2006 and the
effective date of the Final Rule. OG&E states that the Commission made
clear in the NOPR that a utility would not be able to submit a section
210(m) application until after a final rule in this rulemaking. OG&E
contends that it is therefore unreasonable for the Commission to
require utilities to delay submitting section 210(m)(1) applications,
and then hold that it is too late to avoid obligations purportedly
incurred during the Commission-mandated delay.
    135. With regard to termination of contracts with a QF, Industrial
Parties note that many utility contracts have a change-in-law clause
that allows them to terminate current contracts. To the extent that the
parties to a contract cannot agree whether a termination clause has
been triggered, the Industrial Parties agree that the issue will be
best determined in an individual case-specific proceeding in which the
particulars of the contract can be examined. Industrial Parties argue,
however, that the Commission should clarify that utilities may not use
such clauses to terminate their purchase obligation without obtaining a
Commission determination pursuant to the processes set out in the Final
Rule.
Commission Determination
    136. Section 210(m)(6) provides:

    NO EFFECT ON EXISTING RIGHTS AND REMEDIES.--Nothing in this
subpart affects the rights or remedies of any party under any
contract or obligation, in effect or pending approval before the
appropriate State regulatory authority or non-regulated electric
utility on the date of enactment of this subsection, to purchase
electric energy or capacity from or to sell electric energy or
capacity to a qualifying cogeneration facility or qualifying small
power production facility under this Act (including the right to
recover costs of purchasing electric energy or capacity).

    In the Final Rule, the Commission adopted the statutory language
into its regulations \57\ and pointed out that it had previously
addressed the meaning of section 210(m)(6) in Midwest Renewable Energy
Projects, LLC.\58\ In Midwest Renewable, we rejected the notion that
``contract'' and ``obligation'' are synonymous terms. When a utility
refuses to enter into a contract with a QF, and the QF seeks state
regulatory authority assistance to enforce its PURPA regulations, a
non-contractual but still legally enforceable obligation may be created
pursuant to the state's implementation of PURPA. The Commission
explained in the Final Rule that such obligations do not necessarily
involve a single writing containing all material terms and that how QFs
may initiate the process varies from state to state. As a result,
narrowly defining an ``obligation'' to encompass only a specific legal
arrangement with all the relevant and material rates, terms and
conditions established could be at odds with a state's implementation
of PURPA. The Commission therefore concluded in the Final Rule that the
term ``obligation'' means a ``legally enforceable obligation'' which is
established through a state's implementation of PURPA.\59\ We affirm
the Commission's determination in the Final Rule that a QF that
initiated, prior to August 8, 2005, a state PURPA proceeding that may
result in a contract or legally enforceable obligation would be
considered to have triggered an ``obligation'' with the electric
utility subject to section 210(m)(6) pending the state's determination
of whether an enforceable obligation exists. If the state determines
that no enforceable obligation exists, then relief from the utility's
purchase obligation with respect to that QF may be granted.
    137. The Commission clarifies that the date when an ``obligation''
under PURPA is established is the date such obligation is established
by each state regulatory authority or nonregulated utility. In the
Final Rule, the Commission noted that the statute grandfathered
contracts and obligations entered into before the effective date of
EPAct 2005 in section 210(m)(6) of PURPA, but that section 210(m)(1) of
PURPA only gives the Commission authority to terminate the obligation
to enter into new contracts or obligations. The Commission determined
that a QF that has initiated a state PURPA proceeding that may result
in a legally enforceable contract or obligation prior to the applicable
electric utility filing its petition for relief pursuant to Sec.
292.310 of the Commission's regulations will be entitled to have any
contract or obligation that may be established by state law
grandfathered.\60\ We see no

reason to change this determination, as the grandfathering of only pre-
August 8, 2005 contracts or obligations would undermine any subsequent
QF investments.
    138. We do note, however, that if a QF argues that any contract or
obligation was ``pending approval before the appropriate State
regulatory authority or non-regulated electric utility,'' and thus
argues that the utility's obligation to purchase from the QF ought not
be terminated pursuant to a Sec.  292.310 proceeding, the Commission
will consider those claims in the individual proceedings as they arise.
Whether a contract or obligation exists would depend on state law. What
we do not expect to see is a race to make filings either to be
grandfathered, or to negate a potential obligation filed after August
8, 2005, but prior to a utility's filing for relief from the obligation
to enter new contracts or obligations.
    139. Deere requests that we clarify that a legally enforceable
obligation may be created not just by a state PURPA proceeding, but
also by other means such as by a state issuing regulations or taking
other action reasonably designed to give effect to the Commission's
rules. We find that the language ``or pending approval'' in section
210(m)(6) implies that there has been a filing before a state
regulatory authority. As we stated in Midwest Renewable, ``the phrase
`or pending approval' [is] quite significant, as it ensures that
contracts or obligations that had not yet been entered into but were
being pursued in the context of the state commission proceedings that
were pending on the date of enactment of EPAct 2005 will fall within
the savings clause.'' \61\ We therefore find that, under most
circumstances, there must be some sort of filing before a state
regulatory authority for a QF to be ``pending approval.'' Even under
these circumstances, we emphasize, however, that in the division of
responsibilities of administering PURPA between this Commission and
state regulatory authorities (and non-regulated utilities), it is the
state regulatory authorities (or non-regulated utilities) that
determine whether and when a legally enforceable obligation is created,
and the procedures for obtaining approval of such an obligation. QFs
that believe that some other sort of state proceeding has created a
legally enforceable obligation under state law may argue their claim
before the Commission, and we will make such determinations on a case-
by-case basis based on state law.
    140. Accordingly, while we agree with Deere that QFs that have
begun but not yet completed physical construction, and therefore that
have not been able to complete the process for creating a legally
enforceable obligation under a ``build first'' state law, may have
utilized a particular state's implementation of PURPA in a way that
results in a legally enforceable obligation, such a determination would
need to be made on a case-specific basis. Whether the state regulatory
authority's process for creating a legally enforceable obligation has
begun, and thus there is a contract or obligation pending, depends on
state law. A QF may argue that an obligation or contract is pending
approval as provided by state law in any proceedings seeking
termination of the purchase obligation, or pursuant to a petition for
declaratory order.
    141. The Commission denies OG&E's request to establish a new
process by which a utility could use a section 210(m) application to
nullify a state proceeding to establish a new QF purchase obligation.
OG&E complains that the Commission prevented utility section 210(m)
filings from January 19, 2006, when the NOPR issued, until issuance of
the Final Rule, and should not now find that QFs initiating state
``obligation'' proceedings during that interim period, or thereafter,
are grandfathered under section 210(m)(6) of PURPA. Under OG&E's
proposal, a QF seeking a new state ``obligation'' determination would
be required to notify the utility and the utility would have 60 days to
file a section 210(m) application with the Commission; this application
would be addressed in a final determination within 90 days. This final
determination could then be taken into account by the state in deciding
whether to grant the QF's application to create a new ``obligation''
for the local utility to purchase power from the QF.
    142. We decline to create the new process requested by OG&E. We
continue to believe that the Commission's determination to adopt the
language of section 210(m)(6) and to look to state law to determine
whether a contract or obligation is pending approval provides a
sufficient balance between the rights of the electric utilities seeking
relief from the obligation to enter into new contracts or obligations,
and the rights of QFs under existing contracts or obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ Final Rule at P 210-11.
    \58\ Midwest Renewable Energy Projects, LLC, 116 FERC ] 61,017
(2006) (Midwest Renewable).
    \59\ Final Rule at P 211-13.
    \60\ As we noted above, once the Commission has made a finding
that a particular QF has nondiscriminatory access to one of the
specified markets, this conclusion would be binding in proceedings
involving the same QF and other electric utilities, absent a showing
of changed circumstances. Accordingly, as of the date of the first
electric utility's filing seeking termination of the obligation to
purchase from a particular QF, any subsequent state filing that a QF
makes will not result in a grandfathered obligation.
    \61\ Midwest Renewable at P 14 (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    143. We will grant clarification with regard to the termination of
existing contracts. Industrial Parties' request is consistent with our
other findings with regard to contract termination in the Final Rule.
In the Final Rule, in response to comments by AEP, we stated that an
electric utility will not be compelled to enter into a new contract as
long as there is mutual agreement between a QF and the electric utility
to terminate the existing contract. We made clear, however, that ``a QF
contract is to remain in effect until it terminates by mutual agreement
or by its own terms.'' \62\ The Commission also recognized that some
contracts contain clauses stating that legislation, such as EPAct 2005,
or a Commission action, such as the Final Rule in this docket, may be
grounds for termination of the contract. If an electric utility and a
QF disagree as to the meaning of a termination clause, either the
electric utility or the QF may seek a determination regarding its
rights under the termination clause in the appropriate state forum
since the issue of whether a QF has a continuing right to sell is a
matter of contract interpretation.

F. Implementation Procedures

    144. Section 210(m)(3) of PURPA provides in part that ``[a]ny
electric utility may file an application with the Commission for relief
from the mandatory purchase obligation pursuant to this subsection on a
service territory-wide basis.'' The Commission essentially incorporated
this language into Sec.  292.310 of its regulations. The Commission
also determined that an electric utility's mandatory purchase
obligation would be suspended upon the filing of its PURPA petition.
When an electric utility files its PURPA petition, that electric
utility will not be obligated to enter into new contracts or
obligations with QFs as of the date its PURPA petition is filed. If the
Commission finds that the requirements of section 210(m)(1) of PURPA
have been met, then the purchase requirement for that electric utility
ends as of the date of the PURPA petition. However, if the Commission
finds that the requirements of section 210(m)(1) have not been met,
then the electric utility's obligation to enter into new contracts or
obligations is reinstated as of the date of the Commission order.

Requests for Rehearing
    145. PacifiCorp and EEI argue that the Commission should clarify
the procedures for utilities requesting termination of the mandatory
purchase obligation on a ``service territory-wide'' basis. PacifiCorp
notes that the term ``service territory-wide'' is not defined in PURPA
or in the Final Rule and could refer to a portion of a utility's
electric infrastructure located in a specific state or could be
understood to be synonymous with the control area operated by the
applicant. PacifiCorp argues that a single entity (such as PacifiCorp)
owning transmission facilities and operates multiple control areas
should be able to file separate applications for each control area.
PacifiCorp and EEI argue that such clarification would facilitate the
processing of applications by the Commission within the time
limitations established by Congress. PacifiCorp and EEI request that
the Commission clarify that it will interpret ``service territory'' to
be the particular control area or areas identified in the application
when the applicant operates multiple control areas spanning several
states.
    146. If the Commission retains the small QF rebuttable presumption,
Deere requests that the Commission grant rehearing of its decision to
temporarily suspend a utility's PURPA obligation once a request for
relief has been filed. Deere argues that the Commission should instead
apply the utility's PURPA relief to small QFs only after the Commission
makes the required findings with regard to the small QF issue. Deere
contends that this would protect small QFs who, at the time of the
utility's PURPA relief application, have already begun preliminary
development work but have not yet been able to begin utilization of the
applicable state law process for creating a legally enforceable
obligation.
Commission Determination
    147. We clarify that an electric utility may specify in its
application the territory within which it seeks to have its purchase
obligation terminated.
    148. We grant Deere's request to distinguish between particular
types of QFs for purpose of suspending the mandatory purchase
obligation once an application for relief has been filed under section
210(m)(3). The rebuttable presumption that small QFs do not have access
to markets will remain in effect and, thus, it is reasonable to retain
the mandatory purchase obligation from small QFs pending consideration
a PURPA petition. We clarify that to the extent that an electric
utility seeks to be relieved of the obligation to purchase from a small
QF, the electric utility must rebut the presumption that the small QF
does not have nondiscriminatory access to the applicable market prior
to the termination of the purchase requirement as applied to that QF,
and that the purchase obligation remains in effect until, and if, the
Commission makes the finding that the small QF does have
nondiscriminatory access to markets that warrant termination of the
purchase obligation.

III. Information Collection Statement

    149. The regulations of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
\63\ require that OMB approve certain information requirements imposed
by an agency. OMB has approved the information requirements contained
in Order No. 688. Specifically, OMB approved the following information
collections and assigned the corresponding OMB control numbers: Small
Power Production and Cogeneration Facilities (FERC-556) (1902-0075).
    150. On rehearing EEI argues that the filing requirements in Sec.
292.310(d)(3) are unduly broad and burdensome. We have addressed those
arguments elsewhere in this order.\64\
    151. This order on rehearing adopts a change. Specifically, we are
requiring electric utilities filing an application with the Commission
for relief from the mandatory purchase requirement to provide more
information about the potentially affected QFs, including the docket
number assigned if the QF filed for self-certification or Commission
certification of qualifying facility status, the location of the QF
depicted by state and county, and by the name and location of the
substation where the QF is interconnected, and whether the QF is
interconnected as an energy or network resource. We do not anticipate
that this new requirement to provide additional information about the
potentially affected QFs will impose a significant additional burden on
electric utilities; the additional information we are requiring is
readily available to electric utilities. Accordingly, we will allow the
original projected burden estimates expressed in Order No. 688 to
stand.
    Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting
requirements by contacting the following: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426 [Attention:
Michael Miller, Office of the Executive Director, Phone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    152. To submit comments concerning the collection of information(s)
and the associated burden estimates, please send your comments to the
contact listed above and to the Office of Management and Budget, Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503, Attention:
Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; Phone: (202)
395-4650, fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

IV. Document Availability

    153. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in
the Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
Internet through FERC's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and in FERC's

Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ Final Rule at P 219.
    \63\ 5 CFR 1320.12.
    \64\ See supra P 112-17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    154. From FERC's Home Page on the Internet, this information is
available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on
eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or
downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket
number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket
number field.
    155. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the FERC's Web
site during normal business hours from our FERC Online Support at 202-
502-6652 (toll-free at 1-866-208-3676) or e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-

8371 Press 0, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>. E-Mail the Public Reference Room at

V. Effective Date

    156. These revisions in this order on rehearing are effective July
30, 2007.

    By the Commission.

    Commissioner Kelly concurring with a separate statement
attached.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends part 292,
Chapter I, Title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

PART 292--REGULATIONS UNDER SECTIONS 201 AND 210 OF THE PUBLIC
UTILITY REGULATORY POLICIES ACT OF 1978 WITH REGARD TO SMALL POWER
PRODUCTION AND COGENERATION

0
1. The authority citation for part 292 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r, 2601-2645; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42
U.S.C. 7101-7352.

0
2. In Sec.  292.310, paragraphs (c) introductory text and (d)(3) are
revised to read as follows:

Sec.  292.310  Procedures for utilities requesting termination of
obligation to purchase from qualifying facilities.

* * * * *
    (c) An electric utility must submit with its application for each
potentially affected qualifying facility: The docket number assigned if
the qualifying facility filed for self-certification or an application
for Commission certification of qualifying facility status; the net
capacity of the qualifying facility; the location of the qualifying
facility depicted by state and county, and the name and location of the
substation where the qualifying facility is interconnected; the
interconnection status of each potentially affected qualifying facility
including whether the qualifying facility is interconnected as an
energy or a network resource; and the expiration date of the energy
and/or capacity agreement between the applicant utility and each
potentially affected qualifying facility. All potentially affected
qualifying facilities shall include:
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (3) Transmission Studies and related information, including:
    (i) The applicant's long-term transmission plan, conducted by
applicant, or the RTO, ISO or other relevant entity;
    (ii) Transmission constraints by path, element or other level of
comparable detail that have occurred and/or are known and expected to
occur, and any proposed mitigation including transmission construction
plans;
    (iii) Levels of congestion, if available;
    (iv) Relevant system impact studies for the generation
interconnections, already completed;
    (v) Other information pertinent to showing whether transfer
capability is available; and
    (vi) The appropriate link to applicant's OASIS, if any, from which
a qualifying facility may obtain applicant's available transfer
capability (ATC) information.
* * * * *
    KELLY, Commissioner, concurring:
    Under PURPA section 210(m)(1)(A), no electric utility shall be
required to enter into a new contract or obligation to purchase
electric energy from a QF under section 210(m) if the Commission
finds that the QF has nondiscriminatory access to: ``(i)
independently administered, auction-based day ahead and real time
wholesale markets for the sale of electric energy; and (ii)
wholesale markets for long-term sales of capacity and electric
energy.'' This order affirms the finding in Order No. 688 that the
four ``Day 2'' markets (MISO, PJM, NYISO and ISO-NE) satisfy both
requirements of section 210(m)(1)(A).
    By contrast to section 210(m)(1)(A)(ii), section
210(m)(1)(B)(ii) requires that a QF have nondiscriminatory access to
``competitive wholesale markets that provide a meaningful
opportunity to sell capacity, including long-term and short-term
sales, and electric energy, including long-term, short-term and
real-time sales, to buyers other than the utility to which the
qualifying facility is interconnected.'' Section 210(m)(1)(B)(ii)
also provides that ``[i]n determining whether a meaningful
opportunity to sell exists, the Commission shall consider, among
other factors, evidence of transactions within the relevant
market.'' In Order No. 688, the Commission interpreted the use of
the terms ``competitive,'' ``meaningful opportunity'' and ``evidence
of transactions'' in section 210(m)(1)(B)(ii) to mean that Congress
intended for termination of the purchase requirement in a ``Day 1''
market, such as CAISO and SPP, only if it could be demonstrated that
QFs had opportunities to make long-term and short-term sales of
capacity and long-term, short-term and real-time sales of energy
into competitive wholesale markets. This order clarifies that, based
on the specific language contained in section 210(m)(1)(B)(ii), a
petitioning electric utility located in a ``Day 1'' market must
demonstrate an actual, not just theoretical, opportunity to meet
this requirement. Accordingly, this order affirms Order No. 688 in
finding that the ``Day 1'' markets, SPP and CAISO, have not been
shown to meet the requirements of section 210(m)(1)(B)(ii).
    On rehearing, petitioners dispute the Commission's finding in
Order No. 688 that the four ``Day 2'' markets meet the second prong
of section 210(m)(1)(A). They argue that the mere existence of long-
term bilateral contracts for sales of capacity and energy in these
markets is not sufficient to demonstrate that there is a competitive
market for capacity and energy sales or meaningful opportunities for
QFs to sell energy or capacity long-term to multiple buyers.
    I sympathize with petitioners' argument, and in fact I believe
that section 210(m)(1)(A)(ii) logically should have required a
demonstration of a competitive long-term market that provides a
meaningful opportunity for QFs to sell energy or capacity long-term
to buyers other than the utility to which the QF is interconnected,
as is required under section 210(m)(1)(B)(ii). However, the less
specific language in section 210(m)(1)(A)(ii) used to describe the
quality of the relevant long-term market that would satisfy this
requirement indicates that either this was not Congress's intent, or
that perhaps there was a drafting oversight. In any event, we must
look to the plain language of the statute. Thus, in my view, the
Commission has reasonably interpreted section 210(m)(1)(A)(ii) to
require only that there be a ``market'' for long-term sales of
capacity and energy with respect to electric utilities located in
``Day 2'' markets. Accordingly, I concur with this order.

Suedeen G. Kelly
 [FR Doc. E7-12553 Filed 6-28-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 174 (Monday, September 11, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 42592]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19165]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 91

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0768; Amdt. No. 91-348A]
RIN 2120-AL07

Prohibition Against Certain Flights in the Damascus (OSTT) Flight
Information Region (FIR); Correction

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is correcting a final rule published on August 29,
2017. In that final rule, which became effective on the date of
publication, the FAA reissued a prohibition of certain flight
operations in the Damascus (OSTT) Flight Information Region (FIR) by
all U.S. air carriers; U.S. commercial operators; persons exercising
the privileges of an airman certificate issued by the FAA, except such
persons operating a U.S.-registered aircraft for a foreign air carrier;
and operators of U.S.-registered civil aircraft, except where the
operator is a foreign air carrier. The FAA inadvertently failed to
include an Amendment Number for that final rule. This document corrects
that error.

DATES: This final rule is effective on September 11, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Filippell or Will Gonzalez,
Air Transportation Division, AFS-220, Flight Standards Service, Federal
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC
20591; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On August 29, 2017, the FAA published a final rule entitled,
``Prohibition Against Certain Flights in the Damascus (OSTT) Flight
Information Region (FIR).'' In that final rule, which became effective
August 29, 2017, the FAA amended 14 CFR part 91. The FAA inadvertently
failed to include an amendment number for part 91 in the heading
information of the final rule. The correct amendment number is 91-348.

Correction

    In the final rule, FR Doc No: 2017-18322, published on August 29,
2017, at 82 FR 40944 make the following correction:
    1. On page 40944 in the heading of the final rule, revise ``Amdt.
No. 91-?'' to read as ``Amdt. No. 91-348''.

    Issued in Washington, DC, under the authority provided by 49
U.S.C. 106(f), on August 29, 2017.
Lirio Liu,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2017-19165 Filed 9-8-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: June 14, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 114)]
[Notices]
[Page 32936-32937]
[DOCID:fr14jn07-103]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55878; File No. SR-NASD-2006-074]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Association of Securities
Dealers, Inc.; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating to the
Application of NASD Rule 2790 to Issuer-Directed Securities

 June 7, 2007.
    On June 12, 2006, the National Association of Securities Dealers,
Inc. (``NASD'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') a proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ to amend NASD Rule 2790 as described below. The proposed
rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on
January 25, 2007.\3\ The Commission received one comment on the
proposal.\4\ On June 4, 2007, the NASD submitted a response to the
comment.\5\ 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. 55128 (January 18,
2007), 72 FR 3453.
    \4\ See letter from Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP to Nancy M.
Morris, Secretary, Commission, dated February 15, 2007.
    \5\ See letter from Afshin Atabaki, Assistant General Counsel,
NASD, to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Commission, dated June 4, 2007
(``Response Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Description of the Proposal

    NASD Rule 2790 provides that a member or a person associated with a
member may not sell a new issue to any account in which a restricted
person has a beneficial interest, or purchase a new issue in any
account in which such member or associated person has a beneficial
interest. Currently, Rule 2790(d)(1) provides that these prohibitions
do not apply to new issues that are specifically directed by the issuer
to restricted persons, provided that issuer-directed securities are not
sold to or purchased by an account in which broker-dealer personnel,
finders and fiduciaries, or certain members of their immediate family,
have a beneficial interest, unless such persons, or members of their
immediate family, are employees or directors of the issuer, the
issuer's parent, or a subsidiary of the issuer or the issuer's parent.
The NASD is proposing to amend Rule 2790(d)(1) to prohibit issuer-
directed allocations of new issues to broker-dealers.
    The NASD is also proposing to amend Rule 2790(d) by adding a new

subparagraph to Rule 2790(d), to be numbered Rule 2790(d)(2), which
would provide that the prohibitions on the purchase and sale of new
issues do not apply to securities that are specifically directed by the
issuer to restricted persons, provided that a broker-dealer: (A) Does
not underwrite any portion of the offering; (B) does not solicit or
sell any new issue securities in the offering; and (C) has no
involvement or influence, directly or indirectly, in the issuer's
allocation decisions with respect to any of the new issue securities in
the offering.

II. Comments

    The Commission received one comment on the proposal, which
expressed support for the proposal, but requested clarification
regarding two points under proposed NASD Rule 2790(d)(2).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, the commenter requested clarification that a new issue
undertaken by an issuer may qualify for the exception provided for by
proposed Rule 2790(d)(2), notwithstanding that the issuer has engaged a
broker-dealer to provide advisory services, including advice regarding
capital structure and capital raising, so long as no broker-dealer has
engaged in the conduct specified in proposed Rule 2790(d)(2)(A)-(C) set
forth above. The NASD noted in the Response Letter that nothing in
proposed subparagraph (d)(2) would prevent an issuer from engaging a
broker-dealer to provide such advisory services or other limited
services, so long as the conditions set forth in the subparagraph
continue to be satisfied.
    Second, the commenter requested clarification that a purchaser may
reasonably rely on a representation from an issuer to the effect that
no broker-dealer has engaged in any of the conduct specified in
proposed Rule 2790(d)(2)(A)-(C) with respect to the offering, so long
as the purchaser neither knows, nor has reason to know, that the
representation is false. In the Response Letter, the NASD stated that
it believes that, for purposes of compliance with proposed Rule
2790(d)(2), a member or associated person that wishes to purchase new
issues in such offerings may rely on a written representation obtained
in good faith from the issuer that the conditions in proposed
subparagraph (d)(2) are satisfied, so long as the member or associated
person does not believe, or have reason to believe, that such
representation is inaccurate.

III. Discussion

    The Commission has carefully reviewed the proposed rule change and
finds that it is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the
rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
association,\7\ the requirements of Section 15A of the Act,\8\ in
general, and Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\9\ in particular, which
requires that the NASD's rules be designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. The Commission believes that the proposed rule change
strikes a reasonable balance between providing issuers with flexibility
in directing shares and improving the capital raising process while
also preserving the objectives of NASD Rule 2790.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered its impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3.
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\10\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NASD-2006-074) be, and it
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-11505 Filed 6-13-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 88 (Thursday, May 7, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26275-26276]
[FR Doc No: 2015-11001]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2013-E-1652]

Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent
Extension; HVAD ROTARY BLOOD PUMP

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined the
regulatory review period for HVAD ROTARY BLOOD PUMP and is publishing
this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the
determination because of the submission of an application to the
Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of
Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that medical
device.

ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments to http://www.regulations.gov.
Submit written petitions (two copies are required) and written comments
to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
Submit petitions electronically to http://www.regulations.gov at Docket
No. FDA-2013-S-0610.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beverly Friedman, Office of
Management, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave.,
Hillandale Campus, Rm. 3180, Silver Spring, MD 20993,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term
Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug
and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide
that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as
the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical
device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory
review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a
product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the
amount of extension an applicant may receive.
    A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A
testing phase and an approval phase. For medical devices, the testing
phase begins with a clinical investigation of the device and runs until
the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial
submission of an application to market the device and continues until
permission to market the device is granted. Although only a portion of
a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of
extension that the Director of USPTO may award (half the testing phase
must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before
the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a
regulatory review period for a medical device will include all of the
testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C.
156(g)(3)(B).
    FDA has approved for marketing the medical device HVAD ROTARY BLOOD
PUMP. HVAD ROTARY BLOOD PUMP is indicated for use as a bridge to
cardiac transplantation in patients who are at risk of death from
refractory end-stage left ventricular heart failure. Subsequent to this
approval, the USPTO received a patent term restoration application for
HVAD ROTARY BLOOD PUMP (U.S. Patent No. 6,234,772) from HeartWare,
Inc., and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining this
patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated
March 18, 2014, FDA advised the USPTO that this medical device had
undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of HVAD
ROTARY BLOOD PUMP represented the first permitted commercial marketing
or use of the product. Thereafter, the USPTO requested that FDA
determine the product's regulatory review period.
    FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for
HVAD ROTARY BLOOD PUMP is 1,667 days. Of this time, 973 days occurred
during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 694
days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were
derived from the following dates:

    1. The date an exemption under section 520(g) of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360j(g)) involving
this device became effective: April 30, 2008. FDA has verified the
applicant's claim that the date the investigational device exemption
required under section 520(g) of the FD&C act for human tests to begin
became effective April 30, 2008.
    2. The date an application was initially submitted with respect to
the device under section 515 of the FD& C Act (21 U.S.C. 360e):
December 28, 2010. The applicant claims December 23, 2010, as the date
the premarket approval application (PMA) for HVAD ROTARY BLOOD PUMP
(PMA P100047) was initially submitted. However, FDA records indicate
that PMA P100047 was submitted on December 28, 2010.
    3. The date the application was approved: November 20, 2012. FDA
has verified the applicant's claim that PMA P100047 was approved on
November 20, 2012.
    This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the
maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO
applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual
period for patent extension. In its application for patent extension,
this applicant seeks 818 days of patent term extension.
    Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are
incorrect may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
ADDRESSES) either electronic or written comments and ask for a
redetermination by July 6, 2015. Furthermore, any interested person may
petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for
extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period
by November 3, 2015. To meet its burden, the petition must contain
sufficient facts to merit an FDA investigation. (See H. Rept. 857, part
1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 41-42, 1984.) Petitions should be in the
format specified in 21 CFR 10.30.
    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) electronic or written comments and written or
electronic petitions. It is only necessary to send one set of comments.
Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in the
heading of this document. If you submit a written petition, two copies
are required. A petition submitted electronically must be submitted to
http://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. FDA-2013-S-0610. Comments and
petitions that have not been made publicly available on http://www.regulations.gov may be viewed in the Division of Dockets Management
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    Dated: May 1, 2015.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-11001 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 152 (Wednesday, August 9, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37210-37211]
[FR Doc No: 2017-16751]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CD17-17-000]

San Gabriel Valley Water Company; Notice of Preliminary
Determination of a Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility and
Soliciting Comments and Motions To Intervene

    On July 27, 2017, San Gabriel Valley Water Company filed a notice
of intent to construct a qualifying conduit hydropower facility,
pursuant to section 30 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), as amended by
section 4 of the Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2013 (HREA).
The proposed B24 Hydroelectric Station would have a combined installed
capacity of 150 kilowatts (kW), and would be located along a 24-inch
diameter raw water pipeline. The project would be located near the Town
of La Puente in Los Angeles County, California.
    Applicant Contact: Robert J. DiPrimio, Senior Vice President, San
Gabriel Valley Water Company, 11142 Garvey Avenue, El Monte, CA 91733;
Phone No.<PHONE_NUMBER>; Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    FERC Contact: Robert Bell, Phone No.<PHONE_NUMBER>; Email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility Description: The proposed
project would consist of: (1) A new powerhouse containing one
generating unit with an installed capacity of 150 kilowatts (kW)
installed in the potable water pipeline; and (2) appurtenant
facilities. The proposed project would have an estimated annual
generation of 1,200 megawatt-hours (MWh).
    A qualifying conduit hydropower facility is one that is determined
or deemed to meet all of the criteria shown in the table below.

      Table 1--Criteria for Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Statutory provision              Description       Satisfies (Y/N)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FPA 30(a)(3)(A), as amended by   The conduit the                      Y
 HREA.                            facility uses is a
                                  tunnel, canal,
                                  pipeline, aqueduct,
                                  flume, ditch, or
                                  similar manmade water
                                  conveyance that is
                                  operated for the
                                  distribution of water
                                  for agricultural,
                                  municipal, or
                                  industrial
                                  consumption and not
                                  primarily for the
                                  generation of
                                  electricity.
FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(i), as amended   The facility is                      Y
 by HREA.                         constructed,
                                  operated, or
                                  maintained for the
                                  generation of
                                  electric power and
                                  uses for such
                                  generation only the
                                  hydroelectric
                                  potential of a non-
                                  federally owned
                                  conduit.
FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(ii), as amended  The facility has an                  Y
 by HREA.                         installed capacity
                                  that does not exceed
                                  5 megawatts.
FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(iii), as         On or before August 9,               Y
 amended by HREA.                 2013, the facility is
                                  not licensed, or
                                  exempted from the
                                  licensing
                                  requirements of Part
                                  I of the FPA.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Preliminary Determination: The proposed hydroelectric project will
utilize an existing potable water pipeline, used to convey potable
water to storage tanks for subsequent customer distribution. The
addition of the B24

Hydroelectric Station will not alter the pipeline's primary purpose.
Therefore, based upon the above criteria, Commission staff
preliminarily determines that the proposal satisfies the requirements
for a qualifying conduit hydropower facility, which is not required to
be licensed or exempted from licensing.
    Comments and Motions to Intervene: Deadline for filing comments
contesting whether the facility meets the qualifying criteria is 45
days from the issuance date of this notice.
    Deadline for filing motions to intervene is 30 days from the
issuance date of this notice.
    Anyone may submit comments or a motion to intervene in accordance
with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR
385.210 and 385.214. Any motions to intervene must be received on or
before the specified deadline date for the particular proceeding.
    Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: All filings must (1)
bear in all capital letters the COMMENTS CONTESTING QUALIFICATION FOR A
CONDUIT HYDROPOWER FACILITY or MOTION TO INTERVENE, as applicable; (2)
state in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number
of the application to which the filing responds; (3) state the name,
address, and telephone number of the person filing; and (4) otherwise
comply with the requirements of sections 385.2001 through 385.2005 of
the Commission's regulations.\1\ All comments contesting Commission
staff's preliminary determination that the facility meets the
qualifying criteria must set forth their evidentiary basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 385.2001-2005 (2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
motions to intervene and comments using the Commission's eFiling system
at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit
brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration,
using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the
end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or
(202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper
copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. A copy of all other filings in
reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service
on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in
this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.
    Locations of Notice of Intent: Copies of the notice of intent can
be obtained directly from the applicant or such copies can be viewed
and reproduced at the Commission in its Public Reference Room, Room 2A,
888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filing may also be
viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number (i.e., CD17-17) in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, call toll-
free 1-866-208-3676 or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY, call
(202) 502-8659.

    Dated: August 2, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-16751 Filed 8-8-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P